4 ms·

Cryptocurrency != speech; it is not at its core some vehicle for transmission of information, or at least, no more so than conventional currency is. Currency, c

Cryptocurrency != speech; it is not at its core some vehicle for transmission of information, or at least, no more so than conventional currency is. Currency, crypto or not, is no more than a marker of value established by a popular consensus. If any sort of currency supports the transmission of information, it’s a secondary effect where the act of transmitting that information is riding on the coat tails of the monetary/asset exchange.

sneak 5y ago
The act of "sending" a cryptocurrency payment is actually the publication of a cryptographic signature.
- bildung 5y ago
  Sure, but law and regulation doesn't work that way. It's about the intent, not the technicality. That's e.g. the difference between gross negligence, manslaughter and murder, even if someone died in all these situations.
  - sneak 5y ago
    The (IMHO bogus) argument Schneier was making was that it muddles the morality of the situation, not whether or not it is or isn't, or should or should not be illegal: just that it would invite "meddling" (his word).
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > it muddles the morality of the situation For most people, it does. I hold political free speech protections as sacrosanct. I do not have the same view towards dark money. Putting my views and morality aside, the law treats commercial and non-commercial speech differently. Integrating payments lets the government subpoena records (and more) under AML/ATF law. Those laws are powerful and broadly supported. Totally separately, if we take the position that money is speech, then fine. Why the hell not make a one-click “send wallet address” option for a variety of coins?
      - sneak 5y ago
        I think Signal is already very widely used today to transmit cryptocurrency payment addresses privately.
- sithadmin 5y ago
  And the act of 'sending' a conventional fiat payment today is actually the publication of a transaction record in one or more databases. That doesn't mean it's 'speech'.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

sneak 5y ago

The act of "sending" a cryptocurrency payment is actually the publication of a cryptographic signature.

bildung 5y ago
Sure, but law and regulation doesn't work that way. It's about the intent, not the technicality. That's e.g. the difference between gross negligence, manslaughter and murder, even if someone died in all these situations.
- sneak 5y ago
  The (IMHO bogus) argument Schneier was making was that it muddles the morality of the situation, not whether or not it is or isn't, or should or should not be illegal: just that it would invite "meddling" (his word).
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > it muddles the morality of the situation For most people, it does. I hold political free speech protections as sacrosanct. I do not have the same view towards dark money. Putting my views and morality aside, the law treats commercial and non-commercial speech differently. Integrating payments lets the government subpoena records (and more) under AML/ATF law. Those laws are powerful and broadly supported. Totally separately, if we take the position that money is speech, then fine. Why the hell not make a one-click “send wallet address” option for a variety of coins?
    - sneak 5y ago
      I think Signal is already very widely used today to transmit cryptocurrency payment addresses privately.
sithadmin 5y ago
And the act of 'sending' a conventional fiat payment today is actually the publication of a transaction record in one or more databases. That doesn't mean it's 'speech'.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]