4 ms·

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 inte

• 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.