9 ms·

Similarly, most public blockchain-based financial products are a disaster for financial privacy; the exceptions are a handful of emerging privacy-focused blockc

Similarly, most public blockchain-based financial products are a disaster for financial privacy; the exceptions are a handful of emerging privacy-focused blockchain finance alternatives, and these are a gift to money-launderers. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. The existing, centralized electronic payment systems are a disaster for financial privacy, and it'll only get worse with CBDCs. If you try to make something private, then you're helping money launderers, criminals and pedophiles. Therefore, the message from the incumbents: Shut up and embrace the unfolding panopticon, otherwise you're a bad person. Also, we reserve the right to dictate what you spend your money on and if you want to donate to causes (e.g. Wikileaks or truckers) that we don't approve of, we'll block your bank account and cut you off from the system. Lastly, we reserve the right to manipulate the money supply. It's enough for you to know that we are experts and have your best interests in mind. You don't need to concern yourself with how much money there is, how its supply is managed or the potential negative effects of our manipulation, you wouldn't understand the implications anyway.

Shish2k 4y ago
“Trust a democratically elected government to act in the interests of its citizens” isn’t ideal, but I’m not sure “trust a combination of tech-bros and anarchy” is an improvement? I’m working in a legal-but-taboo industry, where mastercard and visa don’t want to deal with us, which is a huge pain in the ass - but every time I’ve looked at crypto, it seems to fix one or two problems and introduce 10 more...
- eterevsky 4y ago
  It's an improvement in the sense that it gives you an additional option.
- jcbrand 4y ago
  You're making a mistake in thinking that monetary policy is somehow democratic and that there is some kind of meaningful oversight over it. Central Banks are privately owned and by design are meant to be "independent" of politics (otherwise politicians would use the money printer to continuously to buy votes, destroying the currency in the process). There is no real oversight over central banks and nobody (outside of the peanut gallery) has meaningfully questioned the extreme central bank policies of the last 10 years or asked the central bankers any uncomfortable questions.
  - RandomLensman 4y ago
    Beyond the Fed, which other large central banks are privately owned? The Bank of England has only been independent for a pretty short time, for example, so central bank independence is a fairly new concept that could change again - because it is a political decision, not a law of nature.
    - jcbrand 4y ago
      US, Japan, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Greece, Turkey and South Africa. The Danish one is "self-owned" whatever that means. The US fed is by far the most important Central Bank due to dollar being the global reserve currency. Source: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-European-Central-Bank-privately-owned-If-so-who-owns-the-bank-and-how-does-its-private-ownership-affect-its-customers https://www.quora.com/Is-the-European-Central-Bank-privately... EDIT: The ECB is owned by member-states's banks, some of which are privately owned. In any case, private ownership is only one issue, the other is that central banks are designed to have very little oversight. Saying that "we can change the laws" doesn't change that. It's not always easy or possible to change laws. When is the USA going to repeal the 2nd amendment?
      - RandomLensman 4y ago
        So, outside of the Fed, there are maybe two more that have some relevance that are privately owned (Japan, Switzerland). The second most important one (ECB) is not. And, of course, the ownership of the Fed (or the ECB) could be changed by changing laws (the Bank of England is an example here of how central banks might enjoy changing degrees of freedom). Addendum: to say that it is not easy to change the law is ok, maybe it should not be. But to use some technology to get around laws where there is not enough social capital for change is a very tricky position. If that holds for law X, why not law Y? What if there is never enough social capital for change? Would it then imply a break-up of that society into multiple ones?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
RandomLensman 4y ago
I'd still argue that if you want a society with different rules then there are two broad choices: (i) get enough people on your side to change the society you are in; or (ii) move to a society that operates closer to what you want Technological escape hatches are probably at best a stop-gap measure, but not a replacement for (i) or (ii)
- roenxi 4y ago
  Usually yes, but some technologies are so powerful they do reshape what is possible for society. Things like birth control, the internet, military technologies like cavalry or guns, the development of limited liability corporations. These things are more powerful than mere laws in what they accomplished. Privacy-coins could be the next big one. It switches accounting from being a tool of coercion (c.f. the famous case of the Canadian truckers) to something like air which just cannot practically be denied. If politicians banded together and behaved like civilised adults then crypto would be worthless. But they aren't about to try that sort of radical change, so this tech might actually solve a lot of problems. With something like Monero I really do not see, at any level, how they could stop me doing stuff like donating to political causes I agree with. That is scary in some ways, but there is also reason to be optimistic.
  - saurik 4y ago
    > the development of limited liability corporations I generally agree with you but don't understand this example: the concept of an LLC is not a technology that stands against law in a way that forces the law to adapt but is a construct that only exists by the grace of law... like, what would it mean to illegally form an LLC in a world that didn't agree with such actions?
    - roenxi 4y ago
      Ah yes, sorry. I may have left out a few steps in the thinking. A country that doesn't adopt LLCs or some similar method of pooling risk will tend to get overrun by a country that does. So people can try to stand against the tide by not allowing pooled risk and capitalism, then 50-100 years later the capitalists role over them because the wealth gap has gotten so large there isn't room for meaningful resistance. Kind of like what happened between the USSR and the US, or Europe v. All Other Civilisations. You can technically choose not to use the legal ideas, but that is really just choosing to be overwhelmed by more organised groups of people. Much like how a military that refused to use guns would get overwhelmed by one that does.
throwaway290 4y ago
You bet I think those people act with my interests in mind, since I elected the people who appointed them (unlike random scammers in croin space). The panopticon you refer to is called "human society", by the way. You cannot participate in one and maintain unlimited freedom. If you are an evil jerk who kidnaps my child or steals life savings from my mom I want to be sure your assets can be seized. If you want to build anarchy, go ahead somewhere else but I think you'll find yourself tired of it rather quickly (and likely get eaten by ruthless command economies).
- birracerveza 4y ago
  > You bet I think those people act with my interests in mind, since I elected the people who appointed them (unlike random scammers in croin space). I want to live in this wonderland too, where are you?
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    If you don't think the system works, fix it. It is actually possible in a democracy, thankfully. Techno solutions do not solve the underlying human factor problems.
    - jcbrand 4y ago
      > If you don't think the system works, fix it Hence Bitcoin.
      - throwaway290 4y ago
        Reply that next time I ask "make up an entirely new system with the same human factor problems but now rogue actors acting with impunity, no oversight and fewer avenues to democratically influence them" rather than "fix it" If you live in a democratic country, you actually have ways of fixing it. And no, you don't need to give up your freedom for blockchain panopticon in the process.
        4y ago
Seriomino 4y ago
So you also believe that a crypto system is inherently better than what we have? Just because you believe money is printed as much as the dark secret super elite group wants it be printed? Ah yes the sseg. But yes we are still living in a democracy (a lot on hn at least) and the solution to all of these problems definitely are not getting solved by crypto. You as an avg joe you are much better off with our current fiat system. The money they collect is used for a lot of things you depend on. You might be totally ignorant to this but just switching to crypto doesn't solve a single problem.
- koonsolo 4y ago
  Who says we all want to switch to crypto? Maybe we want the freedom to divide our personal savings any way we see fit. Democracy is a nice value, but so are freedom and human rights. I expect to have the right to buy crypto or not.
  - Seriomino 4y ago
    I don't say that. I only argue about wrong crypto bro arguments. Feel free to invest in whatever you want but in these discussions cryptobros argue from crypto is the future and is better than fiat. Be aware though about the energy consumption of BTC. The GPU shortage and Asics garbage it creates. I would have loved to buy an rtx GPU over people gambling on the side.
bettysdiagnose 4y ago
>If you try to make something private, then you're helping money launderers, criminals and pedophiles. But you can't just hand wave concerns regarding money laundering and other criminality away. If you want to, you should just say "these things don't matter that much", but don't just avoid them entirely. >Lastly, we reserve the right to manipulate the money supply. It's enough for you to know that we are experts and have your best interests in mind. You don't need to concern yourself with how much money there is, how its supply is managed or the potential negative effects of our manipulation, you wouldn't understand the implications anyway. You mean to say that we live in a democracy. We elect our representatives, and they pick who runs these institutions. They are relatively "undemocratic" because when politicians are able to manipulate the interest rates directly, well things are perhaps even worse.
- jcbrand 4y ago
  But you can't just hand wave concerns regarding money laundering and other criminality away. I'm not, I'm pointing out the rhetorical techniques being used to delegitimize people who try to create privacy tools. You mean to say that we live in a democracy. We elect our representatives, and they pick who runs these institutions. It's a pernicious myth that there is some meaningful democratic oversight over monetary policy. Central banks are privately owned and/or structured in such a way as to not be beholden to political pressure (for the somewhat justifiable reason that politicians are even worse at managing monetary policy).
  - qsort 4y ago
    > It's a pernicious myth that there is some meaningful democratic oversight over monetary policy Latinate words are not a useful cover when you're lying. All Western central banks are effectively a branch of government and are directly responsible to Congress/euparl/$local_variant, and are run by a bunch of politicians (the chair of the Fed is Powell and the president of the ECB is Lagarde, ffs). The notion that they aren't beholden to the popular will is just ridicolous.
    - jcbrand 4y ago
walnutclosefarm 4y ago
> Lastly, we reserve the right to manipulate the money supply. You may dislike the way central banks control and manipulate the money supply, but the reality is that an unmanaged currency is generally a disaster for everyone. To fulfill its role as a stable store of value, a currency has to be managed. The notion that an inherently deflationary unit of accounting (such as Bitcoin), or a completely unmanaged one, or one subject to "management" only through crowd action (as in true Defi) can achieve this is delusional.
- jcbrand 4y ago
  - Seriomino 4y ago
    And Bitcoin automagically fixes that? How? Due to it being a PoW system? Suddenly fraud is no longer possible? (It still is) Money laundering is no longer possible? (It still is) Inflation/Deflation save? (It still is) So tell me, what is crypto fixing? That instead of experts in the central bank the market itself just does what? Definitely nothing pro consumer. There are reasons why banks get requirements from the state on how they need to run and it's most of the time for us consumer/small people.
    - jcbrand 4y ago
      In the least Bitcoin provides an option to opt-out, an alternative that puts some pressure on central banks to have sane monetary policy. It allows people in Lebanon (~200% inflation), Zimbabwe (~700% inflation) and Turkey (70% inflation) to maintain the purchasing power of their wealth and to protect it from confiscation. There are many other advantages of Bitcoin, but these are already significant.
      - pjc50 4y ago
        However it can't protect against real falls in the purchasing power of bitcoin vs the currency it's commonly transacted against, the dollar. I'm starting to think there's a good argument for the US treasury trying to export financial stability by making USD holdable globally. Except that runs into the policy problems relating to who's using it.
agentultra 4y ago
Also, we reserve the right to dictate what you spend your money on and if you want to donate to causes (e.g. Wikileaks or truckers) that we don't approve of, we'll block your bank account and cut you off from the system. There are some things that are plain illegal. If you’re laundering money, selling illegal drugs, running guns, funding terrorist groups, etc you run the risk of getting caught and having your accounts shut down. We’re not living in a dictatorship (yet). There’s still due process and the justice system. Lastly, we reserve the right to manipulate the money supply. “In our time, the curse is monetary illiteracy, just as inability to read plain print was the curse of earlier centuries.” — Ezra Pound If you’re interested in how money works you should read a book or two about it. It’s pretty interesting. “The government,” isn’t “printing money.” Absolutely concern yourself with it. The problem right now is that government regulators aren’t technically savvy enough to understand cryptocrap and it’s implications. They read what briefs they can but they face endless technobabble from lobbyists and “industry representatives.” The hearings with the US congress were something else.
- boppo1 4y ago
  > The government,” isn’t “printing money.” It's certainly increasing the maximum potential supply in ways divorced from any market mechanism. They are central planners and they're failing hard like central planners did before.
- jcbrand 4y ago
  We’re not living in a dictatorship (yet). Funny how people here assume we all live in the same country. There are lots of people on HN who live in dictatorships. If you’re interested in how money works you should read a book or two about it. It’s pretty interesting. Thanks for the condescension. Money printing is a colloquial term used to describe various ways in which the money supply is manipulated by Central Banks, they like to use terms such as Quantitative Easing (creation of new bank reserves that didn't before exist) and open market operations (buying assets with money that didn't before exist).
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    The article is about Washington....
chalst 4y ago
> Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Conventional banking combines a moderate level of privacy with effective measures against money laundering. Why shouldn't we ask that crypto be judged against this baseline?
- cdiddy2 4y ago
  It's not clear that AML regulation actually is all that effective. It also makes it a lot harder for competitors to start in the banking and finance industry. "Based on 2009 data, the UN, with US State Department assistance, calculated the global success rate of money laundering controls at just 0.2 percent (UNODC 2011, 14, 119, 131), but, as noted above, the confiscation rate might be 0.07 percent. In other words, despite ubiquitous money laundering controls, criminals retain up to 99.93 percent of criminal proceeds." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1725366 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1...
- ls15 4y ago
  > Conventional banking combines a moderate level of privacy Rather fake than moderate, I would say. https://moguldom.com/351338/fact-check-do-jp-morgan-chase-wells-fargo-and-other-big-banks-sell-spending-data-to-advertisers/ https://moguldom.com/351338/fact-check-do-jp-morgan-chase-we... As long as banks can just pretend to protect my privacy, while they sell my data, I feel more comfortable about the type of privacy that cryptos like monero provide. > Why shouldn't we ask that crypto be judged against this baseline? Why shouldn't we ask for a reasonable baseline that really protects people's privacy and not just some corporate version of "privacy™"? > effective measures against money laundering Just yesterday, Deutsche Bank's HQ was searched over possible money laundering.
DebtDeflation 4y ago
>Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Surely there is a middle ground between "every single transaction that has ever occurred in the history of the blockchain is public and visible to all" and "no transactions are ever visible to anyone including governments investigating crimes that have exercised due process in obtaining warrants and subpoenas".
- bko 4y ago
  That's the status quo. A handful of entrenched banks consume all the data and share with state officials when asked (and increasingly advertisers). In return, every 10 years or so, there is a big bank bailout. If they get in trouble trillions in newly created dollars are used to buy assets the banks hold on their balance sheet to avoid a panic.
- pjc50 4y ago
  Unfortunately this is a problem of electronic money. Physical money is hard to track in small quantities, but as the quantities get larger it becomes more obvious and harder to hide the suitcases full of cash. (Or, in the Iraq invasion, C130s full of cash: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 ) Electronic money of whatever form is equally trackable regardless of the value of the transaction. That forces a world where either you can drop country-destabilising quantities of money anywhere without any law enforcement or every microtransaction ends up in the security services database. Anonymous billions are all fun and games until the second plane hits the tower.
  - forum_ghost 4y ago
    > Anonymous billions are all fun and games until the second plane hits the tower. What? security services can only spy on money, but just can’t do their main job of preventing attacks by humans? Maybe we should hire a competent replacement for that job then.
- Aqueous 4y ago
  Yes, and that middle ground is the public blockchain. The transactions are visible but the identities of the endpoints are not. That leaves discovery of those identities up to the investigatory bodies following due process, whether through forensic blockchain or other methods. The blockchain is public but anonymous.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Shish2k 4y ago

“Trust a democratically elected government to act in the interests of its citizens” isn’t ideal, but I’m not sure “trust a combination of tech-bros and anarchy” is an improvement? I’m working in a legal-but-taboo industry, where mastercard and visa don’t want to deal with us, which is a huge pain in the ass - but every time I’ve looked at crypto, it seems to fix one or two problems and introduce 10 more...

eterevsky 4y ago
It's an improvement in the sense that it gives you an additional option.
jcbrand 4y ago
You're making a mistake in thinking that monetary policy is somehow democratic and that there is some kind of meaningful oversight over it. Central Banks are privately owned and by design are meant to be "independent" of politics (otherwise politicians would use the money printer to continuously to buy votes, destroying the currency in the process). There is no real oversight over central banks and nobody (outside of the peanut gallery) has meaningfully questioned the extreme central bank policies of the last 10 years or asked the central bankers any uncomfortable questions.
- RandomLensman 4y ago
  Beyond the Fed, which other large central banks are privately owned? The Bank of England has only been independent for a pretty short time, for example, so central bank independence is a fairly new concept that could change again - because it is a political decision, not a law of nature.
  - jcbrand 4y ago
    US, Japan, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Greece, Turkey and South Africa. The Danish one is "self-owned" whatever that means. The US fed is by far the most important Central Bank due to dollar being the global reserve currency. Source: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-European-Central-Bank-privately-owned-If-so-who-owns-the-bank-and-how-does-its-private-ownership-affect-its-customers https://www.quora.com/Is-the-European-Central-Bank-privately... EDIT: The ECB is owned by member-states's banks, some of which are privately owned. In any case, private ownership is only one issue, the other is that central banks are designed to have very little oversight. Saying that "we can change the laws" doesn't change that. It's not always easy or possible to change laws. When is the USA going to repeal the 2nd amendment?
    - RandomLensman 4y ago
      So, outside of the Fed, there are maybe two more that have some relevance that are privately owned (Japan, Switzerland). The second most important one (ECB) is not. And, of course, the ownership of the Fed (or the ECB) could be changed by changing laws (the Bank of England is an example here of how central banks might enjoy changing degrees of freedom). Addendum: to say that it is not easy to change the law is ok, maybe it should not be. But to use some technology to get around laws where there is not enough social capital for change is a very tricky position. If that holds for law X, why not law Y? What if there is never enough social capital for change? Would it then imply a break-up of that society into multiple ones?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

RandomLensman 4y ago

I'd still argue that if you want a society with different rules then there are two broad choices: (i) get enough people on your side to change the society you are in; or (ii) move to a society that operates closer to what you want Technological escape hatches are probably at best a stop-gap measure, but not a replacement for (i) or (ii)

roenxi 4y ago
Usually yes, but some technologies are so powerful they do reshape what is possible for society. Things like birth control, the internet, military technologies like cavalry or guns, the development of limited liability corporations. These things are more powerful than mere laws in what they accomplished. Privacy-coins could be the next big one. It switches accounting from being a tool of coercion (c.f. the famous case of the Canadian truckers) to something like air which just cannot practically be denied. If politicians banded together and behaved like civilised adults then crypto would be worthless. But they aren't about to try that sort of radical change, so this tech might actually solve a lot of problems. With something like Monero I really do not see, at any level, how they could stop me doing stuff like donating to political causes I agree with. That is scary in some ways, but there is also reason to be optimistic.
- saurik 4y ago
  > the development of limited liability corporations I generally agree with you but don't understand this example: the concept of an LLC is not a technology that stands against law in a way that forces the law to adapt but is a construct that only exists by the grace of law... like, what would it mean to illegally form an LLC in a world that didn't agree with such actions?
  - roenxi 4y ago
    Ah yes, sorry. I may have left out a few steps in the thinking. A country that doesn't adopt LLCs or some similar method of pooling risk will tend to get overrun by a country that does. So people can try to stand against the tide by not allowing pooled risk and capitalism, then 50-100 years later the capitalists role over them because the wealth gap has gotten so large there isn't room for meaningful resistance. Kind of like what happened between the USSR and the US, or Europe v. All Other Civilisations. You can technically choose not to use the legal ideas, but that is really just choosing to be overwhelmed by more organised groups of people. Much like how a military that refused to use guns would get overwhelmed by one that does.

throwaway290 4y ago

You bet I think those people act with my interests in mind, since I elected the people who appointed them (unlike random scammers in croin space). The panopticon you refer to is called "human society", by the way. You cannot participate in one and maintain unlimited freedom. If you are an evil jerk who kidnaps my child or steals life savings from my mom I want to be sure your assets can be seized. If you want to build anarchy, go ahead somewhere else but I think you'll find yourself tired of it rather quickly (and likely get eaten by ruthless command economies).

birracerveza 4y ago
> You bet I think those people act with my interests in mind, since I elected the people who appointed them (unlike random scammers in croin space). I want to live in this wonderland too, where are you?
- throwaway290 4y ago
  If you don't think the system works, fix it. It is actually possible in a democracy, thankfully. Techno solutions do not solve the underlying human factor problems.
  - jcbrand 4y ago
    > If you don't think the system works, fix it Hence Bitcoin.
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      Reply that next time I ask "make up an entirely new system with the same human factor problems but now rogue actors acting with impunity, no oversight and fewer avenues to democratically influence them" rather than "fix it" If you live in a democratic country, you actually have ways of fixing it. And no, you don't need to give up your freedom for blockchain panopticon in the process.
      - 4y ago

Seriomino 4y ago

So you also believe that a crypto system is inherently better than what we have? Just because you believe money is printed as much as the dark secret super elite group wants it be printed? Ah yes the sseg. But yes we are still living in a democracy (a lot on hn at least) and the solution to all of these problems definitely are not getting solved by crypto. You as an avg joe you are much better off with our current fiat system. The money they collect is used for a lot of things you depend on. You might be totally ignorant to this but just switching to crypto doesn't solve a single problem.

koonsolo 4y ago
Who says we all want to switch to crypto? Maybe we want the freedom to divide our personal savings any way we see fit. Democracy is a nice value, but so are freedom and human rights. I expect to have the right to buy crypto or not.
- Seriomino 4y ago
  I don't say that. I only argue about wrong crypto bro arguments. Feel free to invest in whatever you want but in these discussions cryptobros argue from crypto is the future and is better than fiat. Be aware though about the energy consumption of BTC. The GPU shortage and Asics garbage it creates. I would have loved to buy an rtx GPU over people gambling on the side.

bettysdiagnose 4y ago

>If you try to make something private, then you're helping money launderers, criminals and pedophiles. But you can't just hand wave concerns regarding money laundering and other criminality away. If you want to, you should just say "these things don't matter that much", but don't just avoid them entirely. >Lastly, we reserve the right to manipulate the money supply. It's enough for you to know that we are experts and have your best interests in mind. You don't need to concern yourself with how much money there is, how its supply is managed or the potential negative effects of our manipulation, you wouldn't understand the implications anyway. You mean to say that we live in a democracy. We elect our representatives, and they pick who runs these institutions. They are relatively "undemocratic" because when politicians are able to manipulate the interest rates directly, well things are perhaps even worse.

jcbrand 4y ago
But you can't just hand wave concerns regarding money laundering and other criminality away. I'm not, I'm pointing out the rhetorical techniques being used to delegitimize people who try to create privacy tools. You mean to say that we live in a democracy. We elect our representatives, and they pick who runs these institutions. It's a pernicious myth that there is some meaningful democratic oversight over monetary policy. Central banks are privately owned and/or structured in such a way as to not be beholden to political pressure (for the somewhat justifiable reason that politicians are even worse at managing monetary policy).
- qsort 4y ago
  > It's a pernicious myth that there is some meaningful democratic oversight over monetary policy Latinate words are not a useful cover when you're lying. All Western central banks are effectively a branch of government and are directly responsible to Congress/euparl/$local_variant, and are run by a bunch of politicians (the chair of the Fed is Powell and the president of the ECB is Lagarde, ffs). The notion that they aren't beholden to the popular will is just ridicolous.
  - jcbrand 4y ago

walnutclosefarm 4y ago

> Lastly, we reserve the right to manipulate the money supply. You may dislike the way central banks control and manipulate the money supply, but the reality is that an unmanaged currency is generally a disaster for everyone. To fulfill its role as a stable store of value, a currency has to be managed. The notion that an inherently deflationary unit of accounting (such as Bitcoin), or a completely unmanaged one, or one subject to "management" only through crowd action (as in true Defi) can achieve this is delusional.

jcbrand 4y ago
- Seriomino 4y ago
  And Bitcoin automagically fixes that? How? Due to it being a PoW system? Suddenly fraud is no longer possible? (It still is) Money laundering is no longer possible? (It still is) Inflation/Deflation save? (It still is) So tell me, what is crypto fixing? That instead of experts in the central bank the market itself just does what? Definitely nothing pro consumer. There are reasons why banks get requirements from the state on how they need to run and it's most of the time for us consumer/small people.
  - jcbrand 4y ago
    In the least Bitcoin provides an option to opt-out, an alternative that puts some pressure on central banks to have sane monetary policy. It allows people in Lebanon (~200% inflation), Zimbabwe (~700% inflation) and Turkey (70% inflation) to maintain the purchasing power of their wealth and to protect it from confiscation. There are many other advantages of Bitcoin, but these are already significant.
    - pjc50 4y ago
      However it can't protect against real falls in the purchasing power of bitcoin vs the currency it's commonly transacted against, the dollar. I'm starting to think there's a good argument for the US treasury trying to export financial stability by making USD holdable globally. Except that runs into the policy problems relating to who's using it.

agentultra 4y ago

Also, we reserve the right to dictate what you spend your money on and if you want to donate to causes (e.g. Wikileaks or truckers) that we don't approve of, we'll block your bank account and cut you off from the system. There are some things that are plain illegal. If you’re laundering money, selling illegal drugs, running guns, funding terrorist groups, etc you run the risk of getting caught and having your accounts shut down. We’re not living in a dictatorship (yet). There’s still due process and the justice system. Lastly, we reserve the right to manipulate the money supply. “In our time, the curse is monetary illiteracy, just as inability to read plain print was the curse of earlier centuries.” — Ezra Pound If you’re interested in how money works you should read a book or two about it. It’s pretty interesting. “The government,” isn’t “printing money.” Absolutely concern yourself with it. The problem right now is that government regulators aren’t technically savvy enough to understand cryptocrap and it’s implications. They read what briefs they can but they face endless technobabble from lobbyists and “industry representatives.” The hearings with the US congress were something else.

boppo1 4y ago
> The government,” isn’t “printing money.” It's certainly increasing the maximum potential supply in ways divorced from any market mechanism. They are central planners and they're failing hard like central planners did before.
jcbrand 4y ago
We’re not living in a dictatorship (yet). Funny how people here assume we all live in the same country. There are lots of people on HN who live in dictatorships. If you’re interested in how money works you should read a book or two about it. It’s pretty interesting. Thanks for the condescension. Money printing is a colloquial term used to describe various ways in which the money supply is manipulated by Central Banks, they like to use terms such as Quantitative Easing (creation of new bank reserves that didn't before exist) and open market operations (buying assets with money that didn't before exist).
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  The article is about Washington....

chalst 4y ago

> Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Conventional banking combines a moderate level of privacy with effective measures against money laundering. Why shouldn't we ask that crypto be judged against this baseline?

cdiddy2 4y ago
It's not clear that AML regulation actually is all that effective. It also makes it a lot harder for competitors to start in the banking and finance industry. "Based on 2009 data, the UN, with US State Department assistance, calculated the global success rate of money laundering controls at just 0.2 percent (UNODC 2011, 14, 119, 131), but, as noted above, the confiscation rate might be 0.07 percent. In other words, despite ubiquitous money laundering controls, criminals retain up to 99.93 percent of criminal proceeds." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1725366 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1...
ls15 4y ago
> Conventional banking combines a moderate level of privacy Rather fake than moderate, I would say. https://moguldom.com/351338/fact-check-do-jp-morgan-chase-wells-fargo-and-other-big-banks-sell-spending-data-to-advertisers/ https://moguldom.com/351338/fact-check-do-jp-morgan-chase-we... As long as banks can just pretend to protect my privacy, while they sell my data, I feel more comfortable about the type of privacy that cryptos like monero provide. > Why shouldn't we ask that crypto be judged against this baseline? Why shouldn't we ask for a reasonable baseline that really protects people's privacy and not just some corporate version of "privacy™"? > effective measures against money laundering Just yesterday, Deutsche Bank's HQ was searched over possible money laundering.

DebtDeflation 4y ago

>Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Surely there is a middle ground between "every single transaction that has ever occurred in the history of the blockchain is public and visible to all" and "no transactions are ever visible to anyone including governments investigating crimes that have exercised due process in obtaining warrants and subpoenas".

bko 4y ago
That's the status quo. A handful of entrenched banks consume all the data and share with state officials when asked (and increasingly advertisers). In return, every 10 years or so, there is a big bank bailout. If they get in trouble trillions in newly created dollars are used to buy assets the banks hold on their balance sheet to avoid a panic.
pjc50 4y ago
Unfortunately this is a problem of electronic money. Physical money is hard to track in small quantities, but as the quantities get larger it becomes more obvious and harder to hide the suitcases full of cash. (Or, in the Iraq invasion, C130s full of cash: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 ) Electronic money of whatever form is equally trackable regardless of the value of the transaction. That forces a world where either you can drop country-destabilising quantities of money anywhere without any law enforcement or every microtransaction ends up in the security services database. Anonymous billions are all fun and games until the second plane hits the tower.
- forum_ghost 4y ago
  > Anonymous billions are all fun and games until the second plane hits the tower. What? security services can only spy on money, but just can’t do their main job of preventing attacks by humans? Maybe we should hire a competent replacement for that job then.
Aqueous 4y ago
Yes, and that middle ground is the public blockchain. The transactions are visible but the identities of the endpoints are not. That leaves discovery of those identities up to the investigatory bodies following due process, whether through forensic blockchain or other methods. The blockchain is public but anonymous.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]