3 ms·
Frankly speaking, I don't support this fight. There is absolutely no good reasons for electronic payments to be anonymous. They never were and they should not
by louwrentius 5y ago
Frankly speaking, I don't support this fight.
There is absolutely no good reasons for electronic payments to be anonymous. They never were and they should not be.
I understand it serves (yes here we go) crime, oh sure. But this is not a hill to die on.
This is not about a lack of understanding or FUD. This is about not letting crime happen.
There is no problem to be solved here.
- miohtama 5y agoAs a nitpick, cryptocurrency payments are pseudonymous, not anonymous. The current AML system is good enough and prevents cryptocurrency crime as efficiently as they prevent other crime. Also this is not about preventing crime, this is about setting a reporting requirement to an inpractical limit of zero euros. Nobody is going to do crime with 10 EUR PornHub or gay condom purchases. What would you consider an accetable reporting requirement for all of your transactions?
- dathinab 5y agoI think that fight makes sense, not to win it but to make sure the bills they pass are sensible. Like there should be a non-small burden to de-anonymize things. Mainly to reduce misuse potential.