3 ms·

That's great, but you could argue that AML/KYC has pollution costs of a different nature in regards to personal liberty. Whether or not they do me suggesting th

That's great, but you could argue that AML/KYC has pollution costs of a different nature in regards to personal liberty. Whether or not they do me suggesting that is about as baseless as suggesting bitcoin has huge negative externalities. Without explicit evidence of a market failure it's probably fine to assume that negative externalities are factored into sticker price of goods as the opportunity cost of product X eventually must take into account those externalities as applied to everyone.

TylerE 7y ago
Yes, in these sense laws against theft "pollute" the personal liberty of thieves.
- snagglegaggle 7y ago
  How are KYC laws against theft...?
  - TylerE 7y ago
    They're literally there to prevent money laundering and other financial crimes.
    - snagglegaggle 7y ago
      Those don't sound like theft. KYC is supposed to make it easier to trace money, ostensibly if used in crime. But doing this before any crime has occurred seems like a violation of the 4th amendment, and probably only passed constitutional muster at the time because the laws force a nongovernmental entity to infringe on your rights. The problem with KYC and banking laws are that you can prevent anyone from conducting business for any reason. They've not seen abuse per se but people have been caught up in them with no recourse. Their application in reality may see them ruled unconstitutional. Bitcoin, then, is just a correction in the other direction. Because face it: large financial institutions still facilitate money laundering, just not for small people.
      - TylerE 7y ago
        There is no constitutional issue. No one forces you to have a bank account, just like no one forces you to have a driver's license - which also involves giving up some rights, btw.
        snagglegaggle 7y ago
        Alright, that vein of arguments are the biggest cop-out ever. It's like trying to say the 4th amendment doesn't apply to houses because no one forces me to have a house. The constitution recognizes the inherent right to be secure in your personage and effects. This should include your financial information. I think it odd that people accept the abrogation of their rights w.r.t. driving. Yes, the government can definitely tax you for road use, but imagine having to carry an ID around that proved you paid your income tax, and that you were required to be IDable at almost all times to be sure you were not committing tax evasion.

TylerE 7y ago

Yes, in these sense laws against theft "pollute" the personal liberty of thieves.

snagglegaggle 7y ago
How are KYC laws against theft...?
- TylerE 7y ago
  They're literally there to prevent money laundering and other financial crimes.
  - snagglegaggle 7y ago
    Those don't sound like theft. KYC is supposed to make it easier to trace money, ostensibly if used in crime. But doing this before any crime has occurred seems like a violation of the 4th amendment, and probably only passed constitutional muster at the time because the laws force a nongovernmental entity to infringe on your rights. The problem with KYC and banking laws are that you can prevent anyone from conducting business for any reason. They've not seen abuse per se but people have been caught up in them with no recourse. Their application in reality may see them ruled unconstitutional. Bitcoin, then, is just a correction in the other direction. Because face it: large financial institutions still facilitate money laundering, just not for small people.
    - TylerE 7y ago
      There is no constitutional issue. No one forces you to have a bank account, just like no one forces you to have a driver's license - which also involves giving up some rights, btw.
      - snagglegaggle 7y ago
        Alright, that vein of arguments are the biggest cop-out ever. It's like trying to say the 4th amendment doesn't apply to houses because no one forces me to have a house. The constitution recognizes the inherent right to be secure in your personage and effects. This should include your financial information. I think it odd that people accept the abrogation of their rights w.r.t. driving. Yes, the government can definitely tax you for road use, but imagine having to carry an ID around that proved you paid your income tax, and that you were required to be IDable at almost all times to be sure you were not committing tax evasion.