3 ms·

> transact against the will of a powerful adversary such as governments. I would not personally be quite so confident that a state actor (or a well-capitalized

> transact against the will of a powerful adversary such as governments. I would not personally be quite so confident that a state actor (or a well-capitalized non-state adversary such as a criminal organization) would not have the ability to severely curtail, if not outright eliminate, some other party's ability to execute cryptocurrency transactions. Most of us have no idea what unexploited vulnerabilities these sorts of organizations have found, and they didn't get to be as powerful as they are by habitually playing an ace up the sleeve when a three will do. Compare with the proverbial suitcase full of cash. From a security perspective, it has the interesting property that transactions involving one don't have to be publicly recorded and processed on a public, global, openly accessible peer-to-peer network in order to complete.

anonporridge 5y ago
> Compare with the proverbial suitcase full of cash. From a security perspective, it has the interesting property that transactions involving one don't have to be publicly recorded and processed on a public, global, openly accessible peer-to-peer network in order to complete. Hence why governments around the world are pushing towards cash free societies. Physical cash is where most illegal (whether you think it's the good illegal or the bad illegal) transactions happen.
Galanwe 5y ago
> suitcase full of cash. From a security perspective, it has the interesting property that transactions involving one don't have to be publicly recorded and processed on a public, global, openly accessible peer-to-peer network in order to complete. Indeed, but it also has drawbacks. You need to find someone with capability to use that much cash without suspicion. Also, I think most of the money laundering is made across borders, from people willing to enjoy their wealth in a country different than the one they earned it. Think money earned to US to be used in Mexico, or nationals of a heavy currency export regulated country (rmb, ruble). Customs are very efficient at looking for cash moving through these borders.

anonporridge 5y ago

> Compare with the proverbial suitcase full of cash. From a security perspective, it has the interesting property that transactions involving one don't have to be publicly recorded and processed on a public, global, openly accessible peer-to-peer network in order to complete. Hence why governments around the world are pushing towards cash free societies. Physical cash is where most illegal (whether you think it's the good illegal or the bad illegal) transactions happen.

Galanwe 5y ago

> suitcase full of cash. From a security perspective, it has the interesting property that transactions involving one don't have to be publicly recorded and processed on a public, global, openly accessible peer-to-peer network in order to complete. Indeed, but it also has drawbacks. You need to find someone with capability to use that much cash without suspicion. Also, I think most of the money laundering is made across borders, from people willing to enjoy their wealth in a country different than the one they earned it. Think money earned to US to be used in Mexico, or nationals of a heavy currency export regulated country (rmb, ruble). Customs are very efficient at looking for cash moving through these borders.