4 ms·

The article isn't wrong though. The main uses of cryptocurrencies, other than as speculative assets, are online drug dealing and ransomware payments. For almos

The article isn't wrong though. The main uses of cryptocurrencies, other than as speculative assets, are online drug dealing and ransomware payments. For almost every other application, real money is more useable, convenient and reliable.

meowface 5y ago
For Monero, yes, that's by far the predominant use. For a time, that was the predominant use for Bitcoin, but I'm pretty sure it isn't anymore as of like ~7 years ago, probably. (The article mentions Bitcoin - probably because ransomware operators know ransomware victims can more easily acquire Bitcoin than Monero - but for other kinds of serious black market activity it's almost always Monero.) For others, I think it's totally untrue even from the start. It's actually usually a lot easier to launder USD than it is to launder something like Bitcoin or Ethereum, given every transaction is completely public and traceable.
- ethanbond 5y ago
  The important feature of traditional accounts is that they’re all individually tied to some real-world entity. It’s hard to understand what money ultimately went where in a chain of 10,000 purposely convoluted transactions even if you can see the entire transaction record. Good luck creating 10k bank accounts to shuffle money around.
  - meowface 5y ago
    True. But if someone's goal is to launder, they're just going to use Monero - no need to do any kind of shuffling and mixing like that. It's simply untraceable by default and way more anonymous than USD or Bitcoin.
    - meowface 5y ago
      (I should've said "nearly untraceable".)
dogman144 5y ago
You’re going to have to cite that claim if you want it taken seriously. At this point it’s an old criticism with frequently used and valid counterpoints. Given paying with crypto is as easy as a QR scan these days once someone is onboarded, the other claim that you use, convenience, is about to go out the window: see venmo, PayPal, CB integrations. You might not be following the industry much though? The problem with your approach here is I hear that, and then I think of HSBC opening a branch for the Sinaloa Cartel, laundering absurds amount of money for them, and no one ever going to jail. If the reason not to use crypto is not to support crime, have you or your friends used HSBC, and did you advocate for them to stop? There are several other banks on this roster as well. Two wrongs != right, but I’m not the one saying stop using fungible USD that has for certain touched crime.
- crumbshot 5y ago
  > Given paying with crypto is as easy as a QR scan these days once someone is onboarded, the other claim that you use, convenience, is about to go out the window: see venmo, PayPal, CB integrations. But why would you want to? In most cases, there's simply no benefit to using cryptocurrencies instead of real money. Even if we could pay for our groceries, clothing, water, electricity, rent/mortgage, taxes, etc. with cryptocurrencies (which, for the most part, we can't) rather than real money, there's no compelling reason to do so.
  - dogman144 5y ago
    That’s another pretty common criticism, and it’s a fish don’t know water is wet situation for USA/lot of western counties. Adoption reasons (and evidence) are fairly well known and proven in other parts of the globe that don’t have currency safety. Fwiw Andreas Antonopolous’s content from early 2010s is good for working through this territory.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    In fucked up countries even Bitcoin with its wild volatility is more secure than government currency. Cf Venezuela.
paulsutter 5y ago
Actually bitcoin is terrible for illegal transactions. Everything is traced and logged for all time > The beauty of Bitcoin, from a detective’s point of view, is that the blockchain records all. “If you catch a dealer with drugs and cash on the street, you’ve caught them committing one crime,” Meiklejohn says. “But if you catch people using something like Silk Road, you’ve uncovered their whole criminal history,” she says. “It’s like discovering their books.” https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/why-criminals-cant-hide-behind-bitcoin https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/why-criminals-cant-h...
- dsyrk 5y ago
  Not for much longer the upcoming taproot feature will dramatically improve on-chain privacy.
  - tromp 5y ago
    Taproot is a decent improvement, but hardly a dramatic one. Dramatic improvement requires hiding amounts, such as the Liquid sidechain does.
    - dsyrk 5y ago
      In understand and my point is it makes such approaches dramatically more feasible. It might not activate though, 90% is a high threshold.
      - tromp 5y ago
        90% is not that high for an uncontroversial change that practically everyone wants.
- fomine3 5y ago
  But just BTC->XMR->BTC is fine for laundering, then they can buy anything by BTC.

meowface 5y ago

For Monero, yes, that's by far the predominant use. For a time, that was the predominant use for Bitcoin, but I'm pretty sure it isn't anymore as of like ~7 years ago, probably. (The article mentions Bitcoin - probably because ransomware operators know ransomware victims can more easily acquire Bitcoin than Monero - but for other kinds of serious black market activity it's almost always Monero.) For others, I think it's totally untrue even from the start. It's actually usually a lot easier to launder USD than it is to launder something like Bitcoin or Ethereum, given every transaction is completely public and traceable.

ethanbond 5y ago
The important feature of traditional accounts is that they’re all individually tied to some real-world entity. It’s hard to understand what money ultimately went where in a chain of 10,000 purposely convoluted transactions even if you can see the entire transaction record. Good luck creating 10k bank accounts to shuffle money around.
- meowface 5y ago
  True. But if someone's goal is to launder, they're just going to use Monero - no need to do any kind of shuffling and mixing like that. It's simply untraceable by default and way more anonymous than USD or Bitcoin.
  - meowface 5y ago
    (I should've said "nearly untraceable".)

dogman144 5y ago

You’re going to have to cite that claim if you want it taken seriously. At this point it’s an old criticism with frequently used and valid counterpoints. Given paying with crypto is as easy as a QR scan these days once someone is onboarded, the other claim that you use, convenience, is about to go out the window: see venmo, PayPal, CB integrations. You might not be following the industry much though? The problem with your approach here is I hear that, and then I think of HSBC opening a branch for the Sinaloa Cartel, laundering absurds amount of money for them, and no one ever going to jail. If the reason not to use crypto is not to support crime, have you or your friends used HSBC, and did you advocate for them to stop? There are several other banks on this roster as well. Two wrongs != right, but I’m not the one saying stop using fungible USD that has for certain touched crime.

crumbshot 5y ago
> Given paying with crypto is as easy as a QR scan these days once someone is onboarded, the other claim that you use, convenience, is about to go out the window: see venmo, PayPal, CB integrations. But why would you want to? In most cases, there's simply no benefit to using cryptocurrencies instead of real money. Even if we could pay for our groceries, clothing, water, electricity, rent/mortgage, taxes, etc. with cryptocurrencies (which, for the most part, we can't) rather than real money, there's no compelling reason to do so.
- dogman144 5y ago
  That’s another pretty common criticism, and it’s a fish don’t know water is wet situation for USA/lot of western counties. Adoption reasons (and evidence) are fairly well known and proven in other parts of the globe that don’t have currency safety. Fwiw Andreas Antonopolous’s content from early 2010s is good for working through this territory.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  In fucked up countries even Bitcoin with its wild volatility is more secure than government currency. Cf Venezuela.

paulsutter 5y ago

Actually bitcoin is terrible for illegal transactions. Everything is traced and logged for all time > The beauty of Bitcoin, from a detective’s point of view, is that the blockchain records all. “If you catch a dealer with drugs and cash on the street, you’ve caught them committing one crime,” Meiklejohn says. “But if you catch people using something like Silk Road, you’ve uncovered their whole criminal history,” she says. “It’s like discovering their books.” https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/why-criminals-cant-hide-behind-bitcoin https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/why-criminals-cant-h...

dsyrk 5y ago
Not for much longer the upcoming taproot feature will dramatically improve on-chain privacy.
- tromp 5y ago
  Taproot is a decent improvement, but hardly a dramatic one. Dramatic improvement requires hiding amounts, such as the Liquid sidechain does.
  - dsyrk 5y ago
    In understand and my point is it makes such approaches dramatically more feasible. It might not activate though, 90% is a high threshold.
    - tromp 5y ago
      90% is not that high for an uncontroversial change that practically everyone wants.
fomine3 5y ago
But just BTC->XMR->BTC is fine for laundering, then they can buy anything by BTC.