7 ms·

bitcoin solves this. In an age of the modern computer and internet, cash has to evolve. People deserve the right to privacy with their money. I know a lot of

bitcoin solves this. In an age of the modern computer and internet, cash has to evolve. People deserve the right to privacy with their money. I know a lot of people are anti BTC, even here on HN, and I get where people are coming from, but do you not also think that people deserve privacy? "Only criminals use it" I use/trade BTC all the time for legit reasons because most people I know also have BTC. I firmly and will always believe in peoples right to privacy. INB4 "BTC is not private" If used correctly, it is. SO rather than just stomp on BTC, why not help the cause?

MBCook 4y ago
This is an anti-money laundering law. It doesn’t ban transactions that size, just in cash. You know what still works? Debit cards. Credit cards. I’d assume checks. Possibly other apps (though I’d be afraid to put so much money through them personally). BTC does nothing good special here unless you’re trying to launder money.
- deejaaymac 4y ago
  I believe that people deserve the right / ability to spend their money as they see fit regardless of transaction size, anonymously. Why does the bank / government need to know were/how I'm spending my money? I'm already taxed when I'm paid every month, I pay my property taxes. This is not about tax evasion or money laundering for me.
  - themacguffinman 4y ago
    > Why does the bank / government need to know were/how I'm spending my money? Because they need that information to identify and trace tax evasion and money laundering. > This is not about tax evasion or money laundering for me. Oh, since you said so, I guess it must be true. No need for the government to actually check using information.
    - akomtu 4y ago
      Ah, the familiar argument: because a few bad guys out there do bad things, we gotta put cuffs on every citizen.
      - themacguffinman 4y ago
        Help, my movements are restricted because I'm cuffed! Oh, wait, government access to transactions doesn't restrict anything and is nothing like being cuffed.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        It's not just government access; it's also the handing over of nearly every transaction to a private entity, whom can sell your transaction data to whomever they'd like at will. This isn't all about government overstep. It's also about the giving up of your privacy to for-profit entities. Regarding the gov: In the US, citizens have protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Forcing nearly all transactions into the view of the gov is an unreasonable search.
        themacguffinman 4y ago
        Then regulate it. Government regulation is the solution to private sector overreach, private entities already cannot just sell any data to anyone, the government does not let private entities run amok like this. The US government regulates itself on the circumstances to which it can search data it already has the power to obtain all the time. Searches become unreasonable when law enforcement does not provide a valid reason to search & acquire information in front of the judiciary. But if the judiciary rules it to be reasonable, the government should have a way to obtain such data. Promoting the use of untraceable transactions like cash is essentially preventing the government from ever procuring any relevant data even if it would be reasonable and relevant.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        Ah, but the government still needs a reason to snoop. That's the point, and using an anonymous mechanism of transaction, such as cash, cannot be the government's argument for why they need the data, because that would necessarily mean that the gov has the right to all data, which the 4th ammendment specifically prohibits.
- jollybean 4y ago
  ??? Credit Cards take 2.5%. Can you imagine the government forcing 2.55 of entire swaths of the economy over to VISA? Debit transactions also have fees. If the government really wants people to switch to digital, kill VISA fees. VISA is the 'Organized Crime Syndicate' that has a stranglehold on the entire digital economy. Gov. can't do it because banks/visa practically own them. It would take a Jimmy Carter or Bernie Sanders for that. Institutional Dems. won't ever do it.
  - sonofhans 4y ago
    This is an excellent point and should be more visible. One effect of this is business model support for payment processors. It's clearly not the only intent of the law. Bu when a government does something to benefit large and entrenched players in the market, we can all be forgiven for thinking that the fix is in.
    - salawat 4y ago
      Keep in mind this also implicitly waives 4th Amendment protections for financial activity. As soon as you have a payment processor involved in a transaction, it's 3rd Party Doctrine all the way to the bank. Kiss expectation of privacy goodbye.
      - CogitoCogito 4y ago
        That's kind of the point.
_aavaa_ 4y ago
> INB4 "BTC is not private" I am curious. What are some of these mysterious on/off-ramps which do not record your private information? > If used correctly, PGP is also secure but the burden of using it "correctly" is higher than most regular people are willing to put up with. So, at least for the time being, it effectively is not private
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
You’re decrying Bitcoin’s affiliation with criminals while advocating its use for money laundering. The solution isn’t Bitcoin. (It’s never Bitcoin.) It’s fighting such laws. Also, simpler than using Bitcoin with a similar risk profile: use cash. It’s tougher to trace than the blockchain, which makes it less likely you’ll get caught ex post facto.
- troon-lover 4y ago

MBCook 4y ago

This is an anti-money laundering law. It doesn’t ban transactions that size, just in cash. You know what still works? Debit cards. Credit cards. I’d assume checks. Possibly other apps (though I’d be afraid to put so much money through them personally). BTC does nothing good special here unless you’re trying to launder money.

deejaaymac 4y ago
I believe that people deserve the right / ability to spend their money as they see fit regardless of transaction size, anonymously. Why does the bank / government need to know were/how I'm spending my money? I'm already taxed when I'm paid every month, I pay my property taxes. This is not about tax evasion or money laundering for me.
- themacguffinman 4y ago
  > Why does the bank / government need to know were/how I'm spending my money? Because they need that information to identify and trace tax evasion and money laundering. > This is not about tax evasion or money laundering for me. Oh, since you said so, I guess it must be true. No need for the government to actually check using information.
  - akomtu 4y ago
    Ah, the familiar argument: because a few bad guys out there do bad things, we gotta put cuffs on every citizen.
    - themacguffinman 4y ago
      Help, my movements are restricted because I'm cuffed! Oh, wait, government access to transactions doesn't restrict anything and is nothing like being cuffed.
      - hellojesus 4y ago
        It's not just government access; it's also the handing over of nearly every transaction to a private entity, whom can sell your transaction data to whomever they'd like at will. This isn't all about government overstep. It's also about the giving up of your privacy to for-profit entities. Regarding the gov: In the US, citizens have protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Forcing nearly all transactions into the view of the gov is an unreasonable search.
        themacguffinman 4y ago
        Then regulate it. Government regulation is the solution to private sector overreach, private entities already cannot just sell any data to anyone, the government does not let private entities run amok like this. The US government regulates itself on the circumstances to which it can search data it already has the power to obtain all the time. Searches become unreasonable when law enforcement does not provide a valid reason to search & acquire information in front of the judiciary. But if the judiciary rules it to be reasonable, the government should have a way to obtain such data. Promoting the use of untraceable transactions like cash is essentially preventing the government from ever procuring any relevant data even if it would be reasonable and relevant.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        Ah, but the government still needs a reason to snoop. That's the point, and using an anonymous mechanism of transaction, such as cash, cannot be the government's argument for why they need the data, because that would necessarily mean that the gov has the right to all data, which the 4th ammendment specifically prohibits.
jollybean 4y ago
??? Credit Cards take 2.5%. Can you imagine the government forcing 2.55 of entire swaths of the economy over to VISA? Debit transactions also have fees. If the government really wants people to switch to digital, kill VISA fees. VISA is the 'Organized Crime Syndicate' that has a stranglehold on the entire digital economy. Gov. can't do it because banks/visa practically own them. It would take a Jimmy Carter or Bernie Sanders for that. Institutional Dems. won't ever do it.
- sonofhans 4y ago
  This is an excellent point and should be more visible. One effect of this is business model support for payment processors. It's clearly not the only intent of the law. Bu when a government does something to benefit large and entrenched players in the market, we can all be forgiven for thinking that the fix is in.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Keep in mind this also implicitly waives 4th Amendment protections for financial activity. As soon as you have a payment processor involved in a transaction, it's 3rd Party Doctrine all the way to the bank. Kiss expectation of privacy goodbye.
    - CogitoCogito 4y ago
      That's kind of the point.

_aavaa_ 4y ago

> INB4 "BTC is not private" I am curious. What are some of these mysterious on/off-ramps which do not record your private information? > If used correctly, PGP is also secure but the burden of using it "correctly" is higher than most regular people are willing to put up with. So, at least for the time being, it effectively is not private

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

You’re decrying Bitcoin’s affiliation with criminals while advocating its use for money laundering. The solution isn’t Bitcoin. (It’s never Bitcoin.) It’s fighting such laws. Also, simpler than using Bitcoin with a similar risk profile: use cash. It’s tougher to trace than the blockchain, which makes it less likely you’ll get caught ex post facto.

troon-lover 4y ago