3 ms·

I'm not proposing a practical system, I'm asserting that such a system is reasonable to exist. Unless, of course, you can prove there are fundamental issues tha

by yholio 8y ago

I'm not proposing a practical system, I'm asserting that such a system is reasonable to exist. Unless, of course, you can prove there are fundamental issues that preclude it. The imperfect nature of international law and institutions is not such an issue, but again a way stick one's head in the sand and abstract the real world away: "see, human institutions are always corrupted, so let's circumvent them and algorithmically dictate our worldview that rejects money laundry is a real problem". What could possibly go wrong?

antidesitter 8y ago
> I'm asserting that such a system is reasonable to exist. When every known system that meets your criteria fails, the onus is on you to show that such a system can succeed. > The imperfect nature of international law and institutions is not such an issue Relying on a demonstrably unreliable system, particularly where enormous power is concerned, is absolutely a fundamental issue. > our worldview that rejects money laundry is a real problem This is a straw man. It's like saying that anyone who doesn't believe the government should have cameras in people's homes rejects terrorism as a real problem. We're talking about tradeoffs.
- yholio 8y ago
  I'm the one talking about trade-offs, you are of the position that any algorithmic feature designed to weaken anonymity in certain well defined scenarios is tantamount to "cameras in people's homes". Well, Bitcoin is more traceable than Monero or Grin so there you go, a handy example of an (unintentional) trade-off that seems to work without the sky falling. It's absolutely reasonable that an intentionally designed system could achieve a more favorable trade-off, with better privacy for regular folk and less for well defined, exceptional circumstances.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    What you're proposing (giving a government entity a "backdoor key") goes far beyond anything Bitcoin does.

by yholio 8y ago

antidesitter 8y ago

> I'm asserting that such a system is reasonable to exist. When every known system that meets your criteria fails, the onus is on you to show that such a system can succeed. > The imperfect nature of international law and institutions is not such an issue Relying on a demonstrably unreliable system, particularly where enormous power is concerned, is absolutely a fundamental issue. > our worldview that rejects money laundry is a real problem This is a straw man. It's like saying that anyone who doesn't believe the government should have cameras in people's homes rejects terrorism as a real problem. We're talking about tradeoffs.

yholio 8y ago
I'm the one talking about trade-offs, you are of the position that any algorithmic feature designed to weaken anonymity in certain well defined scenarios is tantamount to "cameras in people's homes". Well, Bitcoin is more traceable than Monero or Grin so there you go, a handy example of an (unintentional) trade-off that seems to work without the sky falling. It's absolutely reasonable that an intentionally designed system could achieve a more favorable trade-off, with better privacy for regular folk and less for well defined, exceptional circumstances.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  What you're proposing (giving a government entity a "backdoor key") goes far beyond anything Bitcoin does.