8 ms·

They can track all funds that exit the mixer. They may not know how those funds got in the mixer but they can require all exchanges that have a legal presence u

by zaphar 4y ago

They can track all funds that exit the mixer. They may not know how those funds got in the mixer but they can require all exchanges that have a legal presence under their jurisdication to reject any funds who's history originates from the mixer. And yes, taken to an extreme it does indeed mean that every coin becomes inaccessible given enough time. Welcome to the real world consequences of interacting with systems that are counter to wider societies aims.

concordDance 4y ago
> Welcome to the real world consequences of interacting with systems that are counter to wider societies aims. I don't think there's good evidence that this is counter to broader society's aims, just that it's counter to the power of the US state (which always wants its power to grow).
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  The people have voted that they would rather have KYC than criminal organizations operating at scale and foreign governments stealing from Americans. You may disagree, but your position is against that of society at large. You are perfectly free to exit society and transact only outside it.
  - Sargos 4y ago
    There has never been a vote on KYC/AML policies and my research does not turn up any neutral sources suggesting the population strongly supports these rules. In fact history shows that these rules are almost all dictated by a small group of people with little to no public input. Over a hundred years ago none of these laws existed and society survived. 100 years from now I doubt these concepts will be widespread and society will still function well.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      Without these laws, the wealthy don't pay taxes, criminal organizations grow without bound, and foreign governments easily avoid sanctions. As money movement became easier, so governments couldn't stop that movement by issuing letters of marque, these laws became essential.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        So basically these laws perpetuate the status quo while consolidating power in the more evil and violent organizations that dodge these sanctions while subjugating the privacy conscious.
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
        These organizations follow the law and are therefore easily in our control. North Korea and large criminal organizations do not and are not. It makes no sense to say that some organizations are behaving badly, so we should give up trying to regulate all organizations. If you're really trying to argue that, you should argue that tradfi banks should be unregulated. Then you can get your money-laundering done even more cheaply than inefficient decentralized protocols can manage.
        notch656a 4y ago
        >If you're really trying to argue that, you should argue that tradfi banks should be unregulated. Precisely, I do think tradfi banks should be unregulated, with full knowledge that will enable more efficient "money laundering" for some (of course for many of the consolidated powers that be that suck up power when the small guys are blocked, it's no different at all) >It makes no sense to say that some organizations are behaving badly, so we should give up trying to regulate all organizations. Blocking all users of Tornado Cash because of some organizations that behave badly is exactly the kind of logic you're impugning with your statement here. We shouldn't give up on all Tornado Cash transactions because some are bad. You contradict yourself.
        4y ago
  - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
    > The people have voted that they would rather have KYC Source? Paraphrased from what the other commenter said: Um, no.
  - game-of-throws 4y ago
    Interesting logic. Would you say the people have also voted for the war on drugs?
    - giaour 4y ago
      US voters, at least, have voted in representatives at all levels of government based on campaigns centered around a “tough on drugs” message, especially during the crack cocaine moral panic of the early 90s. It’s not much of a stretch to say the people have voted for the war on drugs, even if those policies would not survive a referendum or plebiscite today.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    >You are perfectly free to exit society and transact only outside it. Except I'm not because it applies to 'US Persons' which for US citizens applies to them anywhere they are on earth or even on another planet. Also to not be a US citizen requires paying what is for many people a prohibitive exit tax of thousands of dollars to renounce. That is, you can exit society and still run afoul of the law.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    > criminal organizations operating at scale False ditchotomy. Remember the mafia? They operated and operate at scale with or without tumblers. > foreign governments stealing from Americans. I'm a bit confused as to how you think banning tumblers moves the needle on this... Seems pretty negligible.
- lokar 4y ago
  I'm quite sure what the outcome of a poll in the US and EU would be that asked: Should it be legal to offer, or use, a service that masks the origin and destination of currency transactions from law enforcement who have obtained a proper court order. Don't kid yourself, the tech/crypto crowd is not anywhere near average sentiment.
  - zaphar 4y ago
    A mixer doesn't fit that definition. Even if they obtained a court order they may not be able to provide the information. You are moving the goal posts.
    - qeternity 4y ago
      Some laws state things you must not do, and others state things you must do. Financial regulations tend to fall into the latter. Thus a service that cannot comply with these things is illegal. It's not moving the goal posts. It's just the real world.
    - lokar 4y ago
      Law exists to support social goals. If rules and "goal posts" must be changed to achieve the goals, they will be.
  - gfodor 4y ago
    That’s just one frame on the question at hand, that tilts the poll in one direction. The principle at hand here is if online transactions ought to have a floor on visibility by law enforcement higher than using cash. So there are other versions of the question that would get you different answers.
  - game-of-throws 4y ago
    You can tilt any poll any way you want with exaggerated language. Surely you know this, and it's why you biased the question the way you did. > Should phone carriers be required to divulge text messages to law enforcement who have obtained a proper court order? vs. > Should government workers be allowed to spy on your dick pics? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
vl 4y ago
This is exactly what exchanges already do.
dcolkitt 4y ago
> Welcome to the real world consequences of interacting with systems that are counter to wider societies aims. ...said every totalitarian government in history

by zaphar 4y ago

concordDance 4y ago

> Welcome to the real world consequences of interacting with systems that are counter to wider societies aims. I don't think there's good evidence that this is counter to broader society's aims, just that it's counter to the power of the US state (which always wants its power to grow).

lern_too_spel 4y ago
The people have voted that they would rather have KYC than criminal organizations operating at scale and foreign governments stealing from Americans. You may disagree, but your position is against that of society at large. You are perfectly free to exit society and transact only outside it.
- Sargos 4y ago
  There has never been a vote on KYC/AML policies and my research does not turn up any neutral sources suggesting the population strongly supports these rules. In fact history shows that these rules are almost all dictated by a small group of people with little to no public input. Over a hundred years ago none of these laws existed and society survived. 100 years from now I doubt these concepts will be widespread and society will still function well.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    Without these laws, the wealthy don't pay taxes, criminal organizations grow without bound, and foreign governments easily avoid sanctions. As money movement became easier, so governments couldn't stop that movement by issuing letters of marque, these laws became essential.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      So basically these laws perpetuate the status quo while consolidating power in the more evil and violent organizations that dodge these sanctions while subjugating the privacy conscious.
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago
        These organizations follow the law and are therefore easily in our control. North Korea and large criminal organizations do not and are not. It makes no sense to say that some organizations are behaving badly, so we should give up trying to regulate all organizations. If you're really trying to argue that, you should argue that tradfi banks should be unregulated. Then you can get your money-laundering done even more cheaply than inefficient decentralized protocols can manage.
        notch656a 4y ago
        >If you're really trying to argue that, you should argue that tradfi banks should be unregulated. Precisely, I do think tradfi banks should be unregulated, with full knowledge that will enable more efficient "money laundering" for some (of course for many of the consolidated powers that be that suck up power when the small guys are blocked, it's no different at all) >It makes no sense to say that some organizations are behaving badly, so we should give up trying to regulate all organizations. Blocking all users of Tornado Cash because of some organizations that behave badly is exactly the kind of logic you're impugning with your statement here. We shouldn't give up on all Tornado Cash transactions because some are bad. You contradict yourself.
        4y ago
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
  > The people have voted that they would rather have KYC Source? Paraphrased from what the other commenter said: Um, no.
- game-of-throws 4y ago
  Interesting logic. Would you say the people have also voted for the war on drugs?
  - giaour 4y ago
    US voters, at least, have voted in representatives at all levels of government based on campaigns centered around a “tough on drugs” message, especially during the crack cocaine moral panic of the early 90s. It’s not much of a stretch to say the people have voted for the war on drugs, even if those policies would not survive a referendum or plebiscite today.
- notch656a 4y ago
  >You are perfectly free to exit society and transact only outside it. Except I'm not because it applies to 'US Persons' which for US citizens applies to them anywhere they are on earth or even on another planet. Also to not be a US citizen requires paying what is for many people a prohibitive exit tax of thousands of dollars to renounce. That is, you can exit society and still run afoul of the law.
- concordDance 4y ago
  > criminal organizations operating at scale False ditchotomy. Remember the mafia? They operated and operate at scale with or without tumblers. > foreign governments stealing from Americans. I'm a bit confused as to how you think banning tumblers moves the needle on this... Seems pretty negligible.
lokar 4y ago
I'm quite sure what the outcome of a poll in the US and EU would be that asked: Should it be legal to offer, or use, a service that masks the origin and destination of currency transactions from law enforcement who have obtained a proper court order. Don't kid yourself, the tech/crypto crowd is not anywhere near average sentiment.
- zaphar 4y ago
  A mixer doesn't fit that definition. Even if they obtained a court order they may not be able to provide the information. You are moving the goal posts.
  - qeternity 4y ago
    Some laws state things you must not do, and others state things you must do. Financial regulations tend to fall into the latter. Thus a service that cannot comply with these things is illegal. It's not moving the goal posts. It's just the real world.
  - lokar 4y ago
    Law exists to support social goals. If rules and "goal posts" must be changed to achieve the goals, they will be.
- gfodor 4y ago
  That’s just one frame on the question at hand, that tilts the poll in one direction. The principle at hand here is if online transactions ought to have a floor on visibility by law enforcement higher than using cash. So there are other versions of the question that would get you different answers.
- game-of-throws 4y ago
  You can tilt any poll any way you want with exaggerated language. Surely you know this, and it's why you biased the question the way you did. > Should phone carriers be required to divulge text messages to law enforcement who have obtained a proper court order? vs. > Should government workers be allowed to spy on your dick pics? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M

vl 4y ago

This is exactly what exchanges already do.

dcolkitt 4y ago

> Welcome to the real world consequences of interacting with systems that are counter to wider societies aims. ...said every totalitarian government in history