3 ms·

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

by tromp 4y ago

> 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. Is this arguing both for and against the need for financial privacy at the same time?

nl 4y ago
> Is this arguing both for and against the need for financial privacy at the same time? No. It's a perfectly reasonable position to take. I want my transactions to be private to the world but it's reasonable that law enforcement has a method to investigate criminal behavior.
- lui8906 4y ago
  > I want my transactions to be private to the world but it's reasonable that law enforcement has a method to investigate criminal behavior. If law enforcement has a method to investigate your behavior, its not private. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Either you enjoy privacy (and so do criminals) or criminals do not (and neither do you).
  - nl 4y ago
    > If law enforcement has a method to investigate your behavior, its not private. That doesn't seem to reflect how the world has worked up until now. There are plenty of things that are private except with a legal warrant. There's an entire legal history of wiretap laws and circumstances under which law enforcement can open mail I'd invite you to look at.
  - krferriter 4y ago
    It seems like you're making a sweeping argument against the legitimacy of the subpoena and investigatory power of governments. If a government cannot compel private entities to hand over evidence in criminal investigations, their ability to enforce laws falls apart.
eternalban 4y ago
> Is this arguing both for and against the need for financial privacy at the same time? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayman_Islands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayman_Islands No. Like all things connected to real power, the subtext is that the sovereign alone can setup "privacy-focused" banking for 'special' interests. Anyone else who attempts it is a rebel and may be drawn and quartered. Long live the lizard queen.
tempodox 4y ago
Does it have to be either? State the facts and let the reader decide what's more relevant for them. Only a totalitarian nightmare of absolute control could, in theory, avoid the risks that come with any kind of freedom, by taking away that freedom. It's up to you to decide to what degree your freedom is worth the risks that come with it.
hesk 4y ago
No, they are arguing against extreme positions. With public ledgers like Bitcoin, everybody can reconstruct your financial history if they know your wallet address. With privacy-focused blockchains, nobody can do that. However, with a bank, your financial history is not publicly available but the bank still can perform checks to guard against money laundering.
- tromp 4y ago
  > With privacy-focused blockchains, nobody can do that. There are several different levels of privacy [1]. Some hide amounts and wallet addresses, while still exposing the transaction graph. [1] https://forum.grin.mw/t/scalability-vs-privacy-chart https://forum.grin.mw/t/scalability-vs-privacy-chart

by tromp 4y ago

nl 4y ago

> Is this arguing both for and against the need for financial privacy at the same time? No. It's a perfectly reasonable position to take. I want my transactions to be private to the world but it's reasonable that law enforcement has a method to investigate criminal behavior.

lui8906 4y ago
> I want my transactions to be private to the world but it's reasonable that law enforcement has a method to investigate criminal behavior. If law enforcement has a method to investigate your behavior, its not private. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Either you enjoy privacy (and so do criminals) or criminals do not (and neither do you).
- nl 4y ago
  > If law enforcement has a method to investigate your behavior, its not private. That doesn't seem to reflect how the world has worked up until now. There are plenty of things that are private except with a legal warrant. There's an entire legal history of wiretap laws and circumstances under which law enforcement can open mail I'd invite you to look at.
- krferriter 4y ago
  It seems like you're making a sweeping argument against the legitimacy of the subpoena and investigatory power of governments. If a government cannot compel private entities to hand over evidence in criminal investigations, their ability to enforce laws falls apart.

eternalban 4y ago

> Is this arguing both for and against the need for financial privacy at the same time? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayman_Islands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayman_Islands No. Like all things connected to real power, the subtext is that the sovereign alone can setup "privacy-focused" banking for 'special' interests. Anyone else who attempts it is a rebel and may be drawn and quartered. Long live the lizard queen.

tempodox 4y ago

Does it have to be either? State the facts and let the reader decide what's more relevant for them. Only a totalitarian nightmare of absolute control could, in theory, avoid the risks that come with any kind of freedom, by taking away that freedom. It's up to you to decide to what degree your freedom is worth the risks that come with it.

hesk 4y ago

No, they are arguing against extreme positions. With public ledgers like Bitcoin, everybody can reconstruct your financial history if they know your wallet address. With privacy-focused blockchains, nobody can do that. However, with a bank, your financial history is not publicly available but the bank still can perform checks to guard against money laundering.

tromp 4y ago
> With privacy-focused blockchains, nobody can do that. There are several different levels of privacy [1]. Some hide amounts and wallet addresses, while still exposing the transaction graph. [1] https://forum.grin.mw/t/scalability-vs-privacy-chart https://forum.grin.mw/t/scalability-vs-privacy-chart