4 ms·

"just mixing coins to hide ownership" Isn't that the definition of laundering?

by cordite 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
eqmvii 9y ago
Yes
- icebraining 9y ago
  I don't think so. Money laundering is hiding the source of the money, usually because it's illicit. This might be tax evasion if you hide it from the IRS, but that's not laundering. IANAL, of course.
  - unfunco 9y ago
    A drug dealer tumbling ether _is_ hiding the source of the money.
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    Wikipedia's article on money laundering states that in some countries obfuscating the sources of money is considered money laundering. This means that at least in some countries this fits precisely the definition of money laundering.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
drcode 9y ago
No, it's something called "privacy", which can be used towards good ends or bad ends... I don't want to live in a world where anyone who values privacy is immediately viewed as suspicious, where we say that "anyone who tries to maintain privacy must be a criminal"
- wpietri 9y ago
  Well, unfortunately you do live in one of those worlds, at least as far as the flow of money goes. As we see with the adoption of credit and debit cards, mobile billing, and things like ApplePay, most people don't mind having their transactions recorded. Indeed, for a lot of people it's a benefit; I avoid paying with cash so that I can easily use things like Mint to have a better understanding of my spending. Criminals, on the other hand, strongly value secrecy over convenience, and tracking money is one of the best ways to keep crime in check. So unless you find some way to eliminate crime, being secretive about money flows will always put you in company with criminals. IMHO, lack of anti-crime controls was one of Bitcoin's biggest early mistakes. It was much worse for, say, buying a book online. But it was much better for crime, including digital extortion and fraud. It quickly picked up a taint that it's never really been able to shake. Let that be a lesson to startup founders everywhere: your early adopters can easily define your company.
  - Veratyr 9y ago
    > Well, unfortunately you do live in one of those worlds, at least as far as the flow of money goes. What about people who pay with cash? I know people who use cash for privacy reasons but society doesn't treat them like criminals.
    - heisenbit 9y ago
      Yet
    - hvk 9y ago
      Not necessarily true in the USA. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act#Affected_transactions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act#Affected_tran... for example. I can only imagine how suspiciously any normal bank would generally treat a customer that walks in and tries to withdraw, say $50,000 in cash, for example.
    - wpietri 9y ago
      For small amounts of cash, it's not a problem. But any cash transaction over $10k must be reported. [1] (Structuring your transactions so as to sneak under the limit is illegal.) The same goes for traveling across a US border with over $10k in cash or cash equivalent. Even under that level, though, some level of suspicion attaches to large wads of cash. I've had vendors ask for cash payment for things in the $1-5k range, and it was pretty clear to me that they had tax evasion in mind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report
ransom1538 9y ago
No. They would have to prove the source is from "unlawful activity". But knowing the creativity of the DOJ, I am sure they could come up with something. "Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity—" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1956 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1956
eru 9y ago
Depends. I think you can mix your coins all you like as long as you declare your income to the taxman?
firethief 9y ago
It achieves a weaker level of privacy than cash's. Hiding transactions from the public at large is necessary, but not sufficient, to hide transactions from the government.

"just mixing coins to hide ownership" Isn't that the definition of laundering?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

eqmvii 9y ago

Yes

icebraining 9y ago
I don't think so. Money laundering is hiding the source of the money, usually because it's illicit. This might be tax evasion if you hide it from the IRS, but that's not laundering. IANAL, of course.
- unfunco 9y ago
  A drug dealer tumbling ether _is_ hiding the source of the money.
- geezerjay 9y ago
  Wikipedia's article on money laundering states that in some countries obfuscating the sources of money is considered money laundering. This means that at least in some countries this fits precisely the definition of money laundering.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

drcode 9y ago

No, it's something called "privacy", which can be used towards good ends or bad ends... I don't want to live in a world where anyone who values privacy is immediately viewed as suspicious, where we say that "anyone who tries to maintain privacy must be a criminal"

wpietri 9y ago
Well, unfortunately you do live in one of those worlds, at least as far as the flow of money goes. As we see with the adoption of credit and debit cards, mobile billing, and things like ApplePay, most people don't mind having their transactions recorded. Indeed, for a lot of people it's a benefit; I avoid paying with cash so that I can easily use things like Mint to have a better understanding of my spending. Criminals, on the other hand, strongly value secrecy over convenience, and tracking money is one of the best ways to keep crime in check. So unless you find some way to eliminate crime, being secretive about money flows will always put you in company with criminals. IMHO, lack of anti-crime controls was one of Bitcoin's biggest early mistakes. It was much worse for, say, buying a book online. But it was much better for crime, including digital extortion and fraud. It quickly picked up a taint that it's never really been able to shake. Let that be a lesson to startup founders everywhere: your early adopters can easily define your company.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  > Well, unfortunately you do live in one of those worlds, at least as far as the flow of money goes. What about people who pay with cash? I know people who use cash for privacy reasons but society doesn't treat them like criminals.
  - heisenbit 9y ago
    Yet
  - hvk 9y ago
    Not necessarily true in the USA. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act#Affected_transactions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act#Affected_tran... for example. I can only imagine how suspiciously any normal bank would generally treat a customer that walks in and tries to withdraw, say $50,000 in cash, for example.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    For small amounts of cash, it's not a problem. But any cash transaction over $10k must be reported. [1] (Structuring your transactions so as to sneak under the limit is illegal.) The same goes for traveling across a US border with over $10k in cash or cash equivalent. Even under that level, though, some level of suspicion attaches to large wads of cash. I've had vendors ask for cash payment for things in the $1-5k range, and it was pretty clear to me that they had tax evasion in mind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report

ransom1538 9y ago

No. They would have to prove the source is from "unlawful activity". But knowing the creativity of the DOJ, I am sure they could come up with something. "Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity—" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1956 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1956

eru 9y ago

Depends. I think you can mix your coins all you like as long as you declare your income to the taxman?

firethief 9y ago

It achieves a weaker level of privacy than cash's. Hiding transactions from the public at large is necessary, but not sufficient, to hide transactions from the government.