4 ms·

So organizations shouldn’t be able to remove people’s access to credit or accounts for any reason? If you take that away, you completely remove the ability to p

So organizations shouldn’t be able to remove people’s access to credit or accounts for any reason? If you take that away, you completely remove the ability to police money laundering and other kinds of financial crime (crypto is already a favorite technology of money launderers). Legislation can (and should be IMO) written to provide users of big software systems more rights, but completely removing authority creates conditions for limitless money laundering, no? How does a government govern a blockchain?

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Part of the digital currency deal is, that kind of privacy. Legislation may have to adapt? 'Money laundering' is avoiding taxes or hiding income. So change the rules about taxing money. Maybe a 'transfer tax' or some such, to take a (very small) cut on every transaction.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  If cryptocurrencies are private enough to obfuscate transactions to the point that authorities can’t monitor illegal financial activity, how can the system also be transparent enough to effectively tax users? Isn’t taxation a centralized financial construct, in that a central authority (government) assesses taxes? If the coins built today become the mainstays of crypto transactions and don’t have a concept of a transfer tax, how will one ever be added to the system? The entire system seems to be built from the perspective that it’s “our playground, our rules”, but why governments ever allow that?
googthrowaway42 6y ago
I'm not talking about money laundering and financial crime, I'm talking about removing people's access to the banking and credit system due to their political beliefs.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  It sounds like your solution to the problem is to take away the ability to remove people from the system altogether, no? If that’s the case, then you open up a whole new set of problems. There are far easier and cheaper ways to guarantee legitimate access to banking than rebuilding and migrating the entire system.
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    I don't think so. The nature of systems it that they tend to become corrupt if they can be corrupted.
    - save_ferris 6y ago
      Cryptocurrencies aren’t exempt from that, the 2018 Bitcoin boom and bust was likely caused by one whale account[0] manipulating Tether. By your argument, Bitcoin will become corrupted because we know it can be corrupted. 0: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/2019/11/04/132066/one-bitcoin-whale-may-have-fueled-the-currencys-price-spike-in-2017/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/2019/1...
      - googthrowaway42 6y ago
        The only way bitcoin can become corrupted is if someone gains control of >50% of the hashing power of the network. I'm talking about the integrity of the system itself, not actors within it. George Soros famously did the same thing with the British Pound but the issue with the British Pound is that it is a fiat currency that can be devalued at the whim of a handful of people controlling the system itself regardless of market forces (aka the participants in the system). When Soros or that bitcoin whale "manipulate the market" they are still acting within the system.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Part of the digital currency deal is, that kind of privacy. Legislation may have to adapt? 'Money laundering' is avoiding taxes or hiding income. So change the rules about taxing money. Maybe a 'transfer tax' or some such, to take a (very small) cut on every transaction.

save_ferris 6y ago
If cryptocurrencies are private enough to obfuscate transactions to the point that authorities can’t monitor illegal financial activity, how can the system also be transparent enough to effectively tax users? Isn’t taxation a centralized financial construct, in that a central authority (government) assesses taxes? If the coins built today become the mainstays of crypto transactions and don’t have a concept of a transfer tax, how will one ever be added to the system? The entire system seems to be built from the perspective that it’s “our playground, our rules”, but why governments ever allow that?

googthrowaway42 6y ago

I'm not talking about money laundering and financial crime, I'm talking about removing people's access to the banking and credit system due to their political beliefs.

save_ferris 6y ago
It sounds like your solution to the problem is to take away the ability to remove people from the system altogether, no? If that’s the case, then you open up a whole new set of problems. There are far easier and cheaper ways to guarantee legitimate access to banking than rebuilding and migrating the entire system.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  I don't think so. The nature of systems it that they tend to become corrupt if they can be corrupted.
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    Cryptocurrencies aren’t exempt from that, the 2018 Bitcoin boom and bust was likely caused by one whale account[0] manipulating Tether. By your argument, Bitcoin will become corrupted because we know it can be corrupted. 0: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/2019/11/04/132066/one-bitcoin-whale-may-have-fueled-the-currencys-price-spike-in-2017/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/2019/1...
    - googthrowaway42 6y ago
      The only way bitcoin can become corrupted is if someone gains control of >50% of the hashing power of the network. I'm talking about the integrity of the system itself, not actors within it. George Soros famously did the same thing with the British Pound but the issue with the British Pound is that it is a fiat currency that can be devalued at the whim of a handful of people controlling the system itself regardless of market forces (aka the participants in the system). When Soros or that bitcoin whale "manipulate the market" they are still acting within the system.