4 ms·

Despite you being incorrect, its not even worth debating because the common denominator is that it looks like the state should just quit using public resources

Despite you being incorrect, its not even worth debating because the common denominator is that it looks like the state should just quit using public resources on trying to whitelist transactions since that seems to be the real waste, and find a new tool to curb whatever activity they were actually trying to stop.

arcticbull 6y ago
Wrong in what way? I made three fairly factual statements. 1. Houses are meant for you to live in. Not super contentious I wager. 2. Trustless and decentralized means you can transfer value without the permission of a centralized authority. I believe that's frequently touted. 3. Money laundering is transferring money without the permission of a centralized authority with the intent to conceal the original source of funds.
- vmception 6y ago
  > [Money Laundering] is what [cryptocurrency's] for. That and of course, collecting the proceeds of ransomware. That's the wrong part, even if it was just hyperbole for literary effect then you are conflating legal terms you don't really understand then. Money laundering is a legal term that requires an illicit origin, not merely circumventing the permission of a centralized authority. You were correct that it is designed to ignore the concept of centralized authorities, the rest was either a completely incorrect extrapolation of that, or hyperbole that did not give the effect you thought it did as it just undermines your point and the strength of your argument.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Depends, I maintain that Paul Le Roux is the most likely Satoshi, and of course -- if true -- that would be why Paul Le Roux created it. [1] > Money laundering is a legal term that requires an illicit origin. I'm not 100% sure if it requires both an illicit source and intent to conceal or not. It might, but it sounds like we both have half the definition. For instance, structuring -- breaking apart large transactions into smaller ones to avoid a currency transaction report -- is illegal regardless of whether the source of funds is criminal or not. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/was-bitcoin-created-by-this-international-drug-dealer-maybe/ https://www.wired.com/story/was-bitcoin-created-by-this-inte...
    - vmception 6y ago
      > Depends, I maintain that Paul Le Roux is the most likely Satoshi, and of course -- if true -- that would be why Paul Le Roux created it. [1] Okay. And that's partially why I'm open to the idea of the government ceasing to use public resources on whitelisting all transactions, instead of debating you over whether something is or isn't money laundering. Structuring is a different crime than money laundering, which is actually another exhibit on why I want the government to cease using bothering using public money and resources on whitelisting all transactions. I read enough court cases on Google Scholar about paranoid people doing legal things convicted for only structuring on Google Scholar to make this opinion, and this was before HSBC got a slap on the wrist for literally accepting cash deposits from the literal cartel and getting caught, undermining the whole point of whitelisting transactions to begin with.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      >"For instance, structuring -- breaking apart large transactions into smaller ones to avoid a currency transaction report -- is illegal regardless of whether the source of funds is criminal or not."// I assume you mean according to USC (ie USA law), could you cite which section please?
      - vmception 6y ago
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5324 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5324 https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2033-structuring https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual... and pretty much trying to avoid any monetary reporting threshold is a criminal charge whether you intended to or not. so this one is funny because almost every fairly poor person I know, the kind of people that would rarely have over $10,000 at once ever, are the exact people that would harbor some belief about doing X, Y and Z to "avoid transferring over $10,000" believe it or not, jail, right away.
        pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        Interesting, thanks. Thinking about workarounds, of course carrying money over the border is limited to $10k too, but this was amusing (in a 'I can't believe they were that petty' sort of way): >"There was also a case in Canada in 2013 where fluctuating exchange rates caused a man to have his funds seized. In this situation, the man carefully calculated and was carrying just under $10,000 CAD. However, by the time he reached the airport two days later, the exchange rate tipped his combination of USD and CAD dollars to over $10,000 CAD. Sniffer dogs detected the undeclared cash and the CBSA seized the total amount from him." (from https://clearitusa.com/u-s-customs-cash-limit/ https://clearitusa.com/u-s-customs-cash-limit/) and carrying a cheque that's signed counts as carrying >$10k. So, I wonder about carrying a Bitcoin wallet?
- ballenf 6y ago
  I don't think 3 provides a very robust definition. Otherwise cash, if introduced today, would meet the definition way better than Bitcoin. Or maybe that's intentional.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    I suspect, like someone attempting to introduce cigarettes as a new product into today's market, that's quite intentional.
  - URSpider94 6y ago
    Cash does work pretty well for money laundering, except that it’s bulky. The $1 billion mentioned in this article would weigh 10,000 kilos and would require a semitrailer to move. And the big problem is that now you have to do something with it. You can’t buy anything worth more than $10k with it, without the government getting paperwork on it, so you’re kind of stuck with it.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    (3) is a sufficient component in the US to be money laundering, so it's a sufficient working definition. cash is tracked fairly extensively, as anyone who's transferred large sums can attest to.
- leppr 6y ago
  1. Houses are not "the real estate market". People need dwellings to live in, and the real estate market is there to regulate people's ability to build and occupy them. In a similar fashion to you, I could very well argue that real estate was designed to perpetuate class by way of a multi-generational ponzi scheme, because that's the de-facto situation. In reality, like with cryptocurrency, trying to attribute intention where you only see an effect is just manipulative.

arcticbull 6y ago

Wrong in what way? I made three fairly factual statements. 1. Houses are meant for you to live in. Not super contentious I wager. 2. Trustless and decentralized means you can transfer value without the permission of a centralized authority. I believe that's frequently touted. 3. Money laundering is transferring money without the permission of a centralized authority with the intent to conceal the original source of funds.

vmception 6y ago
> [Money Laundering] is what [cryptocurrency's] for. That and of course, collecting the proceeds of ransomware. That's the wrong part, even if it was just hyperbole for literary effect then you are conflating legal terms you don't really understand then. Money laundering is a legal term that requires an illicit origin, not merely circumventing the permission of a centralized authority. You were correct that it is designed to ignore the concept of centralized authorities, the rest was either a completely incorrect extrapolation of that, or hyperbole that did not give the effect you thought it did as it just undermines your point and the strength of your argument.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Depends, I maintain that Paul Le Roux is the most likely Satoshi, and of course -- if true -- that would be why Paul Le Roux created it. [1] > Money laundering is a legal term that requires an illicit origin. I'm not 100% sure if it requires both an illicit source and intent to conceal or not. It might, but it sounds like we both have half the definition. For instance, structuring -- breaking apart large transactions into smaller ones to avoid a currency transaction report -- is illegal regardless of whether the source of funds is criminal or not. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/was-bitcoin-created-by-this-international-drug-dealer-maybe/ https://www.wired.com/story/was-bitcoin-created-by-this-inte...
  - vmception 6y ago
    > Depends, I maintain that Paul Le Roux is the most likely Satoshi, and of course -- if true -- that would be why Paul Le Roux created it. [1] Okay. And that's partially why I'm open to the idea of the government ceasing to use public resources on whitelisting all transactions, instead of debating you over whether something is or isn't money laundering. Structuring is a different crime than money laundering, which is actually another exhibit on why I want the government to cease using bothering using public money and resources on whitelisting all transactions. I read enough court cases on Google Scholar about paranoid people doing legal things convicted for only structuring on Google Scholar to make this opinion, and this was before HSBC got a slap on the wrist for literally accepting cash deposits from the literal cartel and getting caught, undermining the whole point of whitelisting transactions to begin with.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    >"For instance, structuring -- breaking apart large transactions into smaller ones to avoid a currency transaction report -- is illegal regardless of whether the source of funds is criminal or not."// I assume you mean according to USC (ie USA law), could you cite which section please?
    - vmception 6y ago
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5324 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5324 https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2033-structuring https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual... and pretty much trying to avoid any monetary reporting threshold is a criminal charge whether you intended to or not. so this one is funny because almost every fairly poor person I know, the kind of people that would rarely have over $10,000 at once ever, are the exact people that would harbor some belief about doing X, Y and Z to "avoid transferring over $10,000" believe it or not, jail, right away.
      - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        Interesting, thanks. Thinking about workarounds, of course carrying money over the border is limited to $10k too, but this was amusing (in a 'I can't believe they were that petty' sort of way): >"There was also a case in Canada in 2013 where fluctuating exchange rates caused a man to have his funds seized. In this situation, the man carefully calculated and was carrying just under $10,000 CAD. However, by the time he reached the airport two days later, the exchange rate tipped his combination of USD and CAD dollars to over $10,000 CAD. Sniffer dogs detected the undeclared cash and the CBSA seized the total amount from him." (from https://clearitusa.com/u-s-customs-cash-limit/ https://clearitusa.com/u-s-customs-cash-limit/) and carrying a cheque that's signed counts as carrying >$10k. So, I wonder about carrying a Bitcoin wallet?
ballenf 6y ago
I don't think 3 provides a very robust definition. Otherwise cash, if introduced today, would meet the definition way better than Bitcoin. Or maybe that's intentional.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  I suspect, like someone attempting to introduce cigarettes as a new product into today's market, that's quite intentional.
- URSpider94 6y ago
  Cash does work pretty well for money laundering, except that it’s bulky. The $1 billion mentioned in this article would weigh 10,000 kilos and would require a semitrailer to move. And the big problem is that now you have to do something with it. You can’t buy anything worth more than $10k with it, without the government getting paperwork on it, so you’re kind of stuck with it.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  (3) is a sufficient component in the US to be money laundering, so it's a sufficient working definition. cash is tracked fairly extensively, as anyone who's transferred large sums can attest to.
leppr 6y ago
1. Houses are not "the real estate market". People need dwellings to live in, and the real estate market is there to regulate people's ability to build and occupy them. In a similar fashion to you, I could very well argue that real estate was designed to perpetuate class by way of a multi-generational ponzi scheme, because that's the de-facto situation. In reality, like with cryptocurrency, trying to attribute intention where you only see an effect is just manipulative.