4 ms·

According to the website, GNU Taler gives governments an exclusive view of all of a merchant's private transactions: https://taler.net/en/governments.html http

According to the website, GNU Taler gives governments an exclusive view of all of a merchant's private transactions: https://taler.net/en/governments.html https://taler.net/en/governments.html "With Taler, the receiver of any form of payment is easily identified by the government, and the merchant can be compelled to provide the contract that was accepted by the customer. Governments can use this data to tax businesses and individuals based on their income, making tax evasion and black markets less viable. Thus, despite offering anonymity for citizens spending digital cash to buy goods and services, Taler also ensures that the state can observe incoming funds. This can be used to ensure businesses engage only in legal activities, and do not evade income tax, sales tax or value-added tax." It's not a backdoor in exactly the same way the Clipper chip was, but it's a backdoor nonetheless. The fact that the government is the gatekeeper in GNU Taler means that it would have been unable to empower people to get around the financial blockade against Wikileaks the way cryptocurrency did. That's a practical consequence of giving up privacy and decentralization. >>This seems like an immature view to me -- taxes are very important for a country to continue functioning. It's not immature to point out that this gives the government a backdoor to monitor private transactions. You think this reduction in privacy is necessary to levy sales/income taxes. That's a value judgment, not a refutation of the fact that this is a backdoor. Something doesn't stop being a [negatively associated noun] because you think its effect is positive. Speaking the truth instead of sugar coating it for ideological reasons is not immature.

cyphar 9y ago
> That's a practical consequence of giving up privacy and decentralization. (Most) cryptocurrencies don't have privacy (quite the opposite). The reason why the government couldn't stop cryptocurrency transactions is that they were decentralised. However, I also believe you're wrong in this case. Anybody can set up a mint, and so it would be entirely possible for a Bitcoin mint to exist (in fact I believe several already do). People could buy Taler tokens from the mint and then send them to Wikileaks. When Wikileaks cashes in the tokens, they are sent (using Bitcoin) to Wikileaks. While the government would be able to tell how much money Wikileaks received, they would not be able to stop the underlying funds transfer (through Bitcoin). Yes, they may be able to try to punish the mint for permitting such transactions, but this would be the same as punishing Coinbase for allowing people to send those transactions as well. But if you're running a business and you don't want the government to know how much revenue you've made (which means you're running an illegal business from a tax perspective) then yes, you wouldn't be able to use GNU Taler. This is a benefit, because creating a system that encourages tax fraud is one of the easiest ways to have the government ban that system's usage. > but it's a backdoor nonetheless. [...] not a refutation of the fact that this is a backdoor [...] Something doesn't stop being a [negatively associated noun] because you think its effect is positive. You are using the term "backdoor". The only reasonable definition of this term is "a method (often secret) to allow an entity to bypass authentication or encryption of a particular system" (which is the common usage of the word). This does not apply to GNU Taler, because no encryption or privacy guarantee is being bypassed. When you use GNU Taler as a merchant you are aware that your transactions are audiable by the government for tax purposes -- if you don't want that to be the case then you can choose not to use it. Almost all legitimate businesses would not have an issue with this, because they have to declare revenue anyway. A backdoor would be if Monero had a way to deanonymise transactions, so that governments can figure out what people spent money on. In that case, a privacy guarantee of the system has been subverted.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  >>(Most) cryptocurrencies don't have privacy (quite the opposite). The reason why the government couldn't stop cryptocurrency transactions is that they were decentralised. They can be used in ways that give the user privacy. They're pseudonymous. But yes, a big part of why they can't be stopped is that they're decentralized. But that decentralization only works if users have some degree of privacy. If governments knew every participant's address, that decentralization would effectively vanish. >>Yes, they may be able to try to punish the mint for permitting such transactions, but this would be the same as punishing Coinbase for allowing people to send those transactions as well. Coinbase would not allow transactions to Wikileaks if the financial blockade were reimposed on it. GNU Taler states that it is designed to prevent illegal use, and if it is accurate in its claim, then it will prevent Wikileaks from using it during a financial blockade. A technology's susceptibility to government control doesn't discriminate based on the moral justification for the government wanting to exert that control. That's why one has to acknowledge that there's a trade off to be made, and decide which trade off is more conducive to a functional society. I personally think empowering individuals rather the surveillance state is the better trade-off. >>This does not apply to GNU Taler, because no encryption or privacy guarantee is being bypassed. The Clipper chip did not give any privacy guarantee against government monitoring, yet this channel for monitoring was commonly called a backdoor.

cyphar 9y ago

> That's a practical consequence of giving up privacy and decentralization. (Most) cryptocurrencies don't have privacy (quite the opposite). The reason why the government couldn't stop cryptocurrency transactions is that they were decentralised. However, I also believe you're wrong in this case. Anybody can set up a mint, and so it would be entirely possible for a Bitcoin mint to exist (in fact I believe several already do). People could buy Taler tokens from the mint and then send them to Wikileaks. When Wikileaks cashes in the tokens, they are sent (using Bitcoin) to Wikileaks. While the government would be able to tell how much money Wikileaks received, they would not be able to stop the underlying funds transfer (through Bitcoin). Yes, they may be able to try to punish the mint for permitting such transactions, but this would be the same as punishing Coinbase for allowing people to send those transactions as well. But if you're running a business and you don't want the government to know how much revenue you've made (which means you're running an illegal business from a tax perspective) then yes, you wouldn't be able to use GNU Taler. This is a benefit, because creating a system that encourages tax fraud is one of the easiest ways to have the government ban that system's usage. > but it's a backdoor nonetheless. [...] not a refutation of the fact that this is a backdoor [...] Something doesn't stop being a [negatively associated noun] because you think its effect is positive. You are using the term "backdoor". The only reasonable definition of this term is "a method (often secret) to allow an entity to bypass authentication or encryption of a particular system" (which is the common usage of the word). This does not apply to GNU Taler, because no encryption or privacy guarantee is being bypassed. When you use GNU Taler as a merchant you are aware that your transactions are audiable by the government for tax purposes -- if you don't want that to be the case then you can choose not to use it. Almost all legitimate businesses would not have an issue with this, because they have to declare revenue anyway. A backdoor would be if Monero had a way to deanonymise transactions, so that governments can figure out what people spent money on. In that case, a privacy guarantee of the system has been subverted.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
>>(Most) cryptocurrencies don't have privacy (quite the opposite). The reason why the government couldn't stop cryptocurrency transactions is that they were decentralised. They can be used in ways that give the user privacy. They're pseudonymous. But yes, a big part of why they can't be stopped is that they're decentralized. But that decentralization only works if users have some degree of privacy. If governments knew every participant's address, that decentralization would effectively vanish. >>Yes, they may be able to try to punish the mint for permitting such transactions, but this would be the same as punishing Coinbase for allowing people to send those transactions as well. Coinbase would not allow transactions to Wikileaks if the financial blockade were reimposed on it. GNU Taler states that it is designed to prevent illegal use, and if it is accurate in its claim, then it will prevent Wikileaks from using it during a financial blockade. A technology's susceptibility to government control doesn't discriminate based on the moral justification for the government wanting to exert that control. That's why one has to acknowledge that there's a trade off to be made, and decide which trade off is more conducive to a functional society. I personally think empowering individuals rather the surveillance state is the better trade-off. >>This does not apply to GNU Taler, because no encryption or privacy guarantee is being bypassed. The Clipper chip did not give any privacy guarantee against government monitoring, yet this channel for monitoring was commonly called a backdoor.