3 ms·

> I need to send 1 [REDACTED UNIT OF CRYPTOCURRENCY] between North and South Korea I find this fascinating. How can you send any crypto between one country an

> I need to send 1 [REDACTED UNIT OF CRYPTOCURRENCY] between North and South Korea I find this fascinating. How can you send any crypto between one country and the other? In reality, everyone who is using crypto is doing the transaction in every country where a validator/node is running. There is no concept of "sending BTC between Mexico and the USA". There may be a concept of someone paying USD money to somebody else to write something in the blockchain (i.e. write a transaction that says to move some BTC from Wallet A to Wallet B).

jaywalk 5y ago
You're probably reading too deeply into it. Remember, North Korea is mostly firewalled off from the worldwide Internet, so that's most likely where the problem begins.
- thomastjeffery 5y ago
  In order for crypto to exist, it has to be on the global Blockchain. There is no isolation via firewall possible.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    The Blockchain isn't just some magical thing that exists. If you can't access the global Internet, you can't access the Blockchain.
arcticbull 5y ago
You're sending cryptocurrency from a wallet belonging to an individual physically present in country A to one belonging to an individual physically present in country B. It's not so much where the wallet is, obviously, but where the people using it are.
genidoi 5y ago
You don't even need a validator/node running in your country -- another standard node merely needs to hear about it, run the standard bitcoin-core code for tx propagation to its connected peers (happens automatically ofc.) and it will be included in the next block if network congestion conditions permit miners to do so. Interestingly, this leads to a startling scenario if you use an 'advanced' client such as Electrum, where you have the ability to create & sign a valid transaction, before broadcasting it. During that time, which is ofc defined entirely by your decision to hold off broadcasting the TXO, the transaction 'exists' but isn't recorded in the blockchain. In fact anyone who can get ahold of that transaction data (not to be confused with your private key) can send it off to the network, and it will be registered in the next block. So a valid transaction, once signed by the corresponding private key, is almost entirely removed from the signor, and the decision to broadcast it can be viewed as a seperate one altogether from signing.
ashtonbaker 5y ago
This is indeed fascinating, but is it unique to crypto? Seems like analyzing any electronic transfer like this would get you into a discussion of which bits are stored where on earth. If you're doing something which transfers value to a party under sanctions, and you're publicly announcing that as your intent, then I think courts are unlikely to be interested in metaphysical discussions like this.
vkou 5y ago
Practically, no. If I were committing, say, fraud, by sending an email from foo@gmail.com to bar@gmail.com, with both me and the recipient being in the United States - even if the connection between the Google datacenters is physically routed through Canada, you'd have a hell of a time convincing a judge and jury that I'm committing international fraud. The owner of the wallet is what's important, not the implementation detail. The legal system cares a great deal about intent, because it isn't interested in playing rules-lawyer with wise-asses.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
joshcryer 5y ago
Where ever the private keys reside is where the crypto resides. It's pretty simple.
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  Cool, what jurisdiction is it in when it is a copy of a key in 140 countries? All? None? First to find? It’s anything but simple when it comes to this space.
inopinatus 5y ago
Fundamentally, law cares about the beneficiaries and intentions, especially as these pertain to rights and obligations. The mechanisms are a technical detail.
jacquesm 5y ago
The same argument was trotted out when evaluating (in the early days of the web) a crime had committed if 'the internet' had been involved because the internet was global. But that didn't hold any water and I don't think in a world defined by 'endpoints' it is going to matter much here. Who verifies a transaction isn't relevant, who is the ultimate beneficiary and who is the sender are the relevant bits.
kube-system 5y ago
When I swipe my credit card at a store, I say "I spent money at the store", not "I transferred bits in a bank's datacenter somewhere" Colloquially, when people talk about transfers of wealth, they talk in terms of the people who they belong to, not the literal physical manifestation of the transaction.

jaywalk 5y ago

You're probably reading too deeply into it. Remember, North Korea is mostly firewalled off from the worldwide Internet, so that's most likely where the problem begins.

thomastjeffery 5y ago
In order for crypto to exist, it has to be on the global Blockchain. There is no isolation via firewall possible.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  The Blockchain isn't just some magical thing that exists. If you can't access the global Internet, you can't access the Blockchain.

arcticbull 5y ago

You're sending cryptocurrency from a wallet belonging to an individual physically present in country A to one belonging to an individual physically present in country B. It's not so much where the wallet is, obviously, but where the people using it are.

genidoi 5y ago

You don't even need a validator/node running in your country -- another standard node merely needs to hear about it, run the standard bitcoin-core code for tx propagation to its connected peers (happens automatically ofc.) and it will be included in the next block if network congestion conditions permit miners to do so. Interestingly, this leads to a startling scenario if you use an 'advanced' client such as Electrum, where you have the ability to create & sign a valid transaction, before broadcasting it. During that time, which is ofc defined entirely by your decision to hold off broadcasting the TXO, the transaction 'exists' but isn't recorded in the blockchain. In fact anyone who can get ahold of that transaction data (not to be confused with your private key) can send it off to the network, and it will be registered in the next block. So a valid transaction, once signed by the corresponding private key, is almost entirely removed from the signor, and the decision to broadcast it can be viewed as a seperate one altogether from signing.

ashtonbaker 5y ago

This is indeed fascinating, but is it unique to crypto? Seems like analyzing any electronic transfer like this would get you into a discussion of which bits are stored where on earth. If you're doing something which transfers value to a party under sanctions, and you're publicly announcing that as your intent, then I think courts are unlikely to be interested in metaphysical discussions like this.

vkou 5y ago

Practically, no. If I were committing, say, fraud, by sending an email from foo@gmail.com to bar@gmail.com, with both me and the recipient being in the United States - even if the connection between the Google datacenters is physically routed through Canada, you'd have a hell of a time convincing a judge and jury that I'm committing international fraud. The owner of the wallet is what's important, not the implementation detail. The legal system cares a great deal about intent, because it isn't interested in playing rules-lawyer with wise-asses.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

joshcryer 5y ago

Where ever the private keys reside is where the crypto resides. It's pretty simple.

randomhodler84 5y ago
Cool, what jurisdiction is it in when it is a copy of a key in 140 countries? All? None? First to find? It’s anything but simple when it comes to this space.

inopinatus 5y ago

Fundamentally, law cares about the beneficiaries and intentions, especially as these pertain to rights and obligations. The mechanisms are a technical detail.

jacquesm 5y ago

The same argument was trotted out when evaluating (in the early days of the web) a crime had committed if 'the internet' had been involved because the internet was global. But that didn't hold any water and I don't think in a world defined by 'endpoints' it is going to matter much here. Who verifies a transaction isn't relevant, who is the ultimate beneficiary and who is the sender are the relevant bits.

kube-system 5y ago

When I swipe my credit card at a store, I say "I spent money at the store", not "I transferred bits in a bank's datacenter somewhere" Colloquially, when people talk about transfers of wealth, they talk in terms of the people who they belong to, not the literal physical manifestation of the transaction.