3 ms·

> You can spend a decade developing a provably-anonymous cryptocurrency (which we have indeed now done) Looks like I've been out of the loop. Which cryptocurre

> You can spend a decade developing a provably-anonymous cryptocurrency (which we have indeed now done) Looks like I've been out of the loop. Which cryptocurrency are you referring to?

dannyw 6y ago
Monero.
SCHiM 6y ago
I think the op referring to monero (XMR).
koheripbal 6y ago
Monero (XMR) is the most notable example, but there are other coins that implement the same technology of truly anonymous and untraceable transactions. FinCEN will not change their course. From their perspective, they would rather try to kill or stifle all cryptos than allow illegal activity to be done within that market without an ability to seize assets or trace funds. Right now they have total control over traditional non-cash monetary transaction - and the US gov't specifically has a long reach into the global economy to enforce things like OFAC and sanctions. Cryptocurrency openly defies that power base by design (censorship resistance). There is fundamentally no solution here where the two will play nicely together. Cryptos will simmer in the background as the section of the global economy they facilitate grows (black market transactions), and erode the western financial power base. It's mostly limited today by the lack of scalability in the coin networks. I wonder if there's a future where innovation in scalability allows for a single crypto to reign supreme globally and eliminate all national currencies in our lifetime. It would be a monumental shift of power, which will undoubtedly involve a great deal of political/technological struggle and civil chaos.
- panarky 6y ago
  Monero priced in Bitcoin is down 60% in the last year and it's down 90% since its peak in 2018. If Monero's purpose is to be anonymous and untraceable, and Bitcoin's purpose is to be a store of value, then it appears the market prefers the store-of-value use case. There's a popular idea that crypto currencies are only good for illegal activity. But the evidence so far from a nearly trillion-dollar market says that avoiding law enforcement is not what's driving the crypto phenomenon. There's another popular idea that central bank money printing is devaluing national currencies when priced in crypto. I'm sure that's part of it, but inflating the money supply by 30% doesn't really justify a 10x increase in crypto valuations. It's a small sample size, but the handful of wealthy families I'm acquainted with who are investing 0.1% to 2% of their net worth into Bitcoin (and a little into Ethereum) are more afraid of a collapse of the western political order than central bank money printing. Institutions and high-net-worth individuals aren't looking for privacy for illicit transactions so they're not putting their wealth into Monero. They've witnessed or researched what the collapse of the USSR did to the ruble and asset prices in the former Soviet Union, and they're buying some insurance against a similar unraveling in the US and Europe.
  - tehlike 6y ago
    I don't know if having your btc holdings publicly visible is a good thing for a corrupt government
- alsetmusic 6y ago
  > enforce things like OFAC and sanctions. This all the way. Not being able to just reach into your financial affairs would be seen as a huge affront. This is similar to how law enforcement believes encryption is a major impediment to building a case. Years ago, at a time when money was tight, a bank transfer to my landlord for rent disappeared. OFAC seized the funds. The best reason I can come up with is that my landlord has a Muslim-sounding name (I don't actually know his nationality or religion). It took many calls to my bank to learn this information. The whole thing was shrouded in messaging that it was delayed and would post "tomorrow," day after day. Finally, someone at a branch had some compassion and spent some time figuring it out. I received a case number or incident number and was told that I could contest the seizure. A family member helped me cover the rent. I sent a form contesting the seizure and switched to depositing post office money orders into my landlord's local branch, which was a huge inconvenience. Eventually, I received a letter from OFAC stating some excuse that I can't even remember why my case was moot. This was after maybe six months. I gave up. It wasn't worth it, to me, to fight the government bureaucracy that I knew would be involved. Sorta like paying a traffic ticket that you know you could beat in court because it's easier than going to court. They can basically do whatever and get away with it by making things a pain in the ass to fight.

> You can spend a decade developing a provably-anonymous cryptocurrency (which we have indeed now done) Looks like I've been out of the loop. Which cryptocurrency are you referring to?

dannyw 6y ago

Monero.

SCHiM 6y ago

I think the op referring to monero (XMR).

koheripbal 6y ago

Monero (XMR) is the most notable example, but there are other coins that implement the same technology of truly anonymous and untraceable transactions. FinCEN will not change their course. From their perspective, they would rather try to kill or stifle all cryptos than allow illegal activity to be done within that market without an ability to seize assets or trace funds. Right now they have total control over traditional non-cash monetary transaction - and the US gov't specifically has a long reach into the global economy to enforce things like OFAC and sanctions. Cryptocurrency openly defies that power base by design (censorship resistance). There is fundamentally no solution here where the two will play nicely together. Cryptos will simmer in the background as the section of the global economy they facilitate grows (black market transactions), and erode the western financial power base. It's mostly limited today by the lack of scalability in the coin networks. I wonder if there's a future where innovation in scalability allows for a single crypto to reign supreme globally and eliminate all national currencies in our lifetime. It would be a monumental shift of power, which will undoubtedly involve a great deal of political/technological struggle and civil chaos.

panarky 6y ago
Monero priced in Bitcoin is down 60% in the last year and it's down 90% since its peak in 2018. If Monero's purpose is to be anonymous and untraceable, and Bitcoin's purpose is to be a store of value, then it appears the market prefers the store-of-value use case. There's a popular idea that crypto currencies are only good for illegal activity. But the evidence so far from a nearly trillion-dollar market says that avoiding law enforcement is not what's driving the crypto phenomenon. There's another popular idea that central bank money printing is devaluing national currencies when priced in crypto. I'm sure that's part of it, but inflating the money supply by 30% doesn't really justify a 10x increase in crypto valuations. It's a small sample size, but the handful of wealthy families I'm acquainted with who are investing 0.1% to 2% of their net worth into Bitcoin (and a little into Ethereum) are more afraid of a collapse of the western political order than central bank money printing. Institutions and high-net-worth individuals aren't looking for privacy for illicit transactions so they're not putting their wealth into Monero. They've witnessed or researched what the collapse of the USSR did to the ruble and asset prices in the former Soviet Union, and they're buying some insurance against a similar unraveling in the US and Europe.
- tehlike 6y ago
  I don't know if having your btc holdings publicly visible is a good thing for a corrupt government
alsetmusic 6y ago
> enforce things like OFAC and sanctions. This all the way. Not being able to just reach into your financial affairs would be seen as a huge affront. This is similar to how law enforcement believes encryption is a major impediment to building a case. Years ago, at a time when money was tight, a bank transfer to my landlord for rent disappeared. OFAC seized the funds. The best reason I can come up with is that my landlord has a Muslim-sounding name (I don't actually know his nationality or religion). It took many calls to my bank to learn this information. The whole thing was shrouded in messaging that it was delayed and would post "tomorrow," day after day. Finally, someone at a branch had some compassion and spent some time figuring it out. I received a case number or incident number and was told that I could contest the seizure. A family member helped me cover the rent. I sent a form contesting the seizure and switched to depositing post office money orders into my landlord's local branch, which was a huge inconvenience. Eventually, I received a letter from OFAC stating some excuse that I can't even remember why my case was moot. This was after maybe six months. I gave up. It wasn't worth it, to me, to fight the government bureaucracy that I knew would be involved. Sorta like paying a traffic ticket that you know you could beat in court because it's easier than going to court. They can basically do whatever and get away with it by making things a pain in the ass to fight.