3 ms·

The banned person was Indonesian. Something something his bank account. (One more reason for me why payment system of the future must be permissionless. Like, y

The banned person was Indonesian. Something something his bank account. (One more reason for me why payment system of the future must be permissionless. Like, you know, bitcoin)

sangnoir 6y ago
> One more reason for me why payment system of the future must be permissionless. Like, you know, bitcoin That's not possible with a public ledger and current state of analysis - instead of proactive cancellation of the transaction on the legacy banking system, you'll get a delayed reaction from the authorities. When you file your tax return you'll get a notice to explain transaction ID 0x...34 to a certain banned individual. So it will be about as "permissionless" as tax-fraud: you will only be able to get away with it for a while, and I don't doubt there will be future analytical tools (and laws) that will make tracing payments even easier. It is politically untenable for bitcoin payments to be opaque when "Funding Terrorism" is a high-priority security issue.
- candiodari 6y ago
  Bitcoin payments might be traceable from wallet to wallet, but wallets don't have a name on them. Not even for governments. So if anyone takes basic precautions, you can't trace them. Although I assure you a normal person can't read bitcoin transactions lists like they can a bank statement, and this goes for people working at the tax office too. And they can't forbid those transactions, either. It raises the bar significantly on Tax offices, and therefore means less enforcement. And if need be, there are several anonymous cryptocurrencies that would love nothing more than to replace Bitcoin, and of course they will as soon as governments actually start tracing payments. https://coinmarketcap.com/alexandria/article/is-cryptocurrency-anonymous https://coinmarketcap.com/alexandria/article/is-cryptocurren...
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  That's actually can be circumvented rather trivially. Wallets are anonymous, and you can just do some mixer transactions off chain. Wallet A pays to mixer M, mixer's address N sends funds to wallets B and C minus comission. In effect A paid B (and C), and nothing links them to each other. Schemes can get even less transparent with Lightning network.
  - orestarod 6y ago
    Who owns the mixer?
    - gruez 6y ago
      nobody https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/JoinMarket https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/JoinMarket
- literallycancer 6y ago
  There are already ways to avoid that outcome today. You can use a fresh wallet and launder the money through a mixer like the other poster suggests, but you can also use shielded transactions like Zcash has (based on zero knowledge proofs) or coins where transactions are private if there is enough volume like Monero.
- dwild 6y ago
  > When you file your tax return you'll get a notice to explain transaction ID 0x...34 to a certain banned individual. S We were talking about PayPal banning someone and you equate that to tax authorities banning someone?!

The banned person was Indonesian. Something something his bank account. (One more reason for me why payment system of the future must be permissionless. Like, you know, bitcoin)

sangnoir 6y ago

> One more reason for me why payment system of the future must be permissionless. Like, you know, bitcoin That's not possible with a public ledger and current state of analysis - instead of proactive cancellation of the transaction on the legacy banking system, you'll get a delayed reaction from the authorities. When you file your tax return you'll get a notice to explain transaction ID 0x...34 to a certain banned individual. So it will be about as "permissionless" as tax-fraud: you will only be able to get away with it for a while, and I don't doubt there will be future analytical tools (and laws) that will make tracing payments even easier. It is politically untenable for bitcoin payments to be opaque when "Funding Terrorism" is a high-priority security issue.

candiodari 6y ago
Bitcoin payments might be traceable from wallet to wallet, but wallets don't have a name on them. Not even for governments. So if anyone takes basic precautions, you can't trace them. Although I assure you a normal person can't read bitcoin transactions lists like they can a bank statement, and this goes for people working at the tax office too. And they can't forbid those transactions, either. It raises the bar significantly on Tax offices, and therefore means less enforcement. And if need be, there are several anonymous cryptocurrencies that would love nothing more than to replace Bitcoin, and of course they will as soon as governments actually start tracing payments. https://coinmarketcap.com/alexandria/article/is-cryptocurrency-anonymous https://coinmarketcap.com/alexandria/article/is-cryptocurren...
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
That's actually can be circumvented rather trivially. Wallets are anonymous, and you can just do some mixer transactions off chain. Wallet A pays to mixer M, mixer's address N sends funds to wallets B and C minus comission. In effect A paid B (and C), and nothing links them to each other. Schemes can get even less transparent with Lightning network.
- orestarod 6y ago
  Who owns the mixer?
  - gruez 6y ago
    nobody https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/JoinMarket https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/JoinMarket
literallycancer 6y ago
There are already ways to avoid that outcome today. You can use a fresh wallet and launder the money through a mixer like the other poster suggests, but you can also use shielded transactions like Zcash has (based on zero knowledge proofs) or coins where transactions are private if there is enough volume like Monero.
dwild 6y ago
> When you file your tax return you'll get a notice to explain transaction ID 0x...34 to a certain banned individual. S We were talking about PayPal banning someone and you equate that to tax authorities banning someone?!