4 ms·

One of the big pluses to bitcoin is the fact that you can move large amounts of money relatively quickly instead of relying on banks.

iamthirsty 9y ago
Illegal operations would obviously not rely on banks.
- infecto 9y ago
  I think you would surprise yourself with that comment. Illegal operations do indeed rely heavily on banks.
  - knz 9y ago
    > Illegal operations do indeed rely heavily on banks. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-became-bank-to-drug-cartels-pays-big-for-lapses-idUSBRE8BA05M20121212 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-became-ba... As an example for anyone not familiar with these types of stories.
  - iamthirsty 9y ago
    When I bought drugs in high school, it was usually in cash. Sure, I concede multi-million dollar operations may have bank help, but I don't think you're thinking about the full picture.
- dashundchen 9y ago
  HSBC and Wachovia were recently involved in the laundering of hundreds of billions of dollars for Mexico's biggest drug cartel (and pretty much every executive involved came out unscathed once it was revealed). https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/15/hsbc-has-form-mexico-laundered-drug-money https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/15/hsbc-h...
- Danihan 9y ago
  Don't be so sure...
nxsynonym 9y ago
is that different than cash - especially surrounding illegally obtained cash? I'm not saying it's not a risk - I just don't see it as inherently more risky than currently viable currencies.
- mikeash 9y ago
  One big difference is that cash is too popular to ban entirely. If a major attack were somehow linked to Bitcoin, the US government could make the whole thing illegal. We all know that wouldn't do much to actually stop terrorist attacks, but it would be a major problem for a wealth manager trying to operate within the law, and being ineffective certainly hasn't stopped the US government from passing dumb anti-terror laws in the past.

iamthirsty 9y ago

Illegal operations would obviously not rely on banks.

infecto 9y ago
I think you would surprise yourself with that comment. Illegal operations do indeed rely heavily on banks.
- knz 9y ago
  > Illegal operations do indeed rely heavily on banks. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-became-bank-to-drug-cartels-pays-big-for-lapses-idUSBRE8BA05M20121212 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-became-ba... As an example for anyone not familiar with these types of stories.
- iamthirsty 9y ago
  When I bought drugs in high school, it was usually in cash. Sure, I concede multi-million dollar operations may have bank help, but I don't think you're thinking about the full picture.
dashundchen 9y ago
HSBC and Wachovia were recently involved in the laundering of hundreds of billions of dollars for Mexico's biggest drug cartel (and pretty much every executive involved came out unscathed once it was revealed). https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/15/hsbc-has-form-mexico-laundered-drug-money https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/15/hsbc-h...
Danihan 9y ago
Don't be so sure...

nxsynonym 9y ago

is that different than cash - especially surrounding illegally obtained cash? I'm not saying it's not a risk - I just don't see it as inherently more risky than currently viable currencies.

mikeash 9y ago
One big difference is that cash is too popular to ban entirely. If a major attack were somehow linked to Bitcoin, the US government could make the whole thing illegal. We all know that wouldn't do much to actually stop terrorist attacks, but it would be a major problem for a wealth manager trying to operate within the law, and being ineffective certainly hasn't stopped the US government from passing dumb anti-terror laws in the past.