3 ms·

I foresee more and more government intervention trying to prevent people from using cryptocurrencies. I mean, the most common use case for a cryptocurrency like

by kache_ 6y ago

I foresee more and more government intervention trying to prevent people from using cryptocurrencies. I mean, the most common use case for a cryptocurrency like Monero is to dodge government taxes and make illegal transactions. God bless the developers and cryptographers who are continuing on the good fight. And good luck to them too, because as their technology gains influence and threatens to usurp todays power, they will face resistance. Maybe the original authors of the protocols saw this coming, which is why they used fake identities like Satoshi Nakamoto, or Nicolas van Saberhagen. I'm less worried about it becoming illegal (what are you going to do, ban math?), and more worried about the networks themselves getting compromised.

antonvs 6y ago
> what are you going to do, ban math? Hold their beer! The Indiana Pi Bill shows that even math is not off the table for ambitious legislatures.
r00fus 6y ago
I don't see this as prevention. I see a desire to prevent tax avoidance/evasion.
- kache_ 6y ago
  They have already began preventing tax evasion using know your customer regulations & blockchain analysis, but this is not possible with protocols which obfuscate wallet addresses, their contents & transactions with cool cryptographic tricks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_signature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_signature
  - gruez 6y ago
    >but this is not possible with protocols which obfuscate wallet addresses, their contents & transactions with cool cryptographic tricks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_signature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_signature Fancy cryptographic techniques won't do much good here. You can already do much of the same thing with cash, which is also untraceable. What the government ended up doing is essentially saying that any cash transaction over a certain amount is considered suspect until proven otherwise. For instance, a bank isn't going to allow you to deposit $50k in hundred dollar bills.
- aerovistae 6y ago
  These two sentences seem....contradictory? You said it's not prevention then said it's prevention.
  - r00fus 6y ago
    Let me clarify. The goal is not to prevent crypto usage, but to appropriately tax it so people don't use it to dodge taxes.

by kache_ 6y ago

antonvs 6y ago

> what are you going to do, ban math? Hold their beer! The Indiana Pi Bill shows that even math is not off the table for ambitious legislatures.

r00fus 6y ago

I don't see this as prevention. I see a desire to prevent tax avoidance/evasion.

kache_ 6y ago
They have already began preventing tax evasion using know your customer regulations & blockchain analysis, but this is not possible with protocols which obfuscate wallet addresses, their contents & transactions with cool cryptographic tricks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_signature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_signature
- gruez 6y ago
  >but this is not possible with protocols which obfuscate wallet addresses, their contents & transactions with cool cryptographic tricks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_signature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_signature Fancy cryptographic techniques won't do much good here. You can already do much of the same thing with cash, which is also untraceable. What the government ended up doing is essentially saying that any cash transaction over a certain amount is considered suspect until proven otherwise. For instance, a bank isn't going to allow you to deposit $50k in hundred dollar bills.
aerovistae 6y ago
These two sentences seem....contradictory? You said it's not prevention then said it's prevention.
- r00fus 6y ago
  Let me clarify. The goal is not to prevent crypto usage, but to appropriately tax it so people don't use it to dodge taxes.