3 ms·

I can think of a few ways that more specific regulations could address this: - It will not be legal for miners to run/"execute code on behalf of" smart contrac

by WJW 4y ago

I can think of a few ways that more specific regulations could address this: - It will not be legal for miners to run/"execute code on behalf of" smart contracts from the sanctioned list, which can be downloaded from the Treasury web site and is updated regularly. This is very akin to how the sanctioned people list works currently. - The treasury will maintain a list of blockchain addresses that are known to contain tainted coins and all businesses need to verify they don't accept business when the payment comes from one of those. A little bit more tricky since you can send money from any wallet to any other one, but still this is how a lot of the current sanctions already work. You could imagine this being only applicable for companies with a banking or exchange license or something like that. Perhaps it would become a part of regular auditing done by accountancy companies. - (Possibly the most likely depending on how much lobbying the crypto industry manages to get in) Miners don't have to do anything, but all crypto exchanges with users in the USA (in this case, I'd expect the EU and other big jurisdictions to develop similar rules over time) are forbidden from transacting with a list of addresses belonging to contracts available from the Treasury. Options 2 and 3 are very similar, but 3 is scoped only to exchanges. Since the majority of users is not sophisticated enough to transact without exchanges, this seems like it would give the most bang for the buck for the Treasury. More sophisticated launderers could be tracked on a case-by-case basis if needed. One thing I think is not very likely to happen is for the Treasury to say: "Oh well! Those crypto rascals outsmarted us by running their money laundering smart contracts on the Eth VM, so we guess money laundering is fine now".

amluto 4y ago
I think an appropriate endgame would be an extension of #3: any regulated entity (e.g. an exchange) may not accept cryptocurrency which, anywhere in its history since the last time it came from a regulated entity, went through something sanctioned. This, of course, would mean that Monero would be right out. In general, most of the supposed value of cryptocurrency seems to be that everyone looks the other way when parties do things that look like or are illegal but take the money anyway. Functionality, cryptocurrency is very similar to e-gold, and I see no reason it should be allowed to do the same things just because it’s somewhat decentralized.
Canada 4y ago
> It will not be legal for miners to run/"execute code on behalf of" smart contracts from the sanctioned list, which can be downloaded from the Treasury web site and is updated regularly. This is very akin to how the sanctioned people list works currently. This has come up in other contexts before, most famously the idea of using OP_RETURN to embed child pornography into the Bitcoin blockchain. An Ethereum client must download and execute all transactions in each block in order to determine if that block is valid, and thus learn current state of the system. The client can't know if this "illegal" transaction has been executed until it actually executes it. As an operator you don't have any choice, other than simply turning everything off and "rugging" all your customers. So let's say you're Coinbase. You have billions of dollars of other people's money, innocent people's money, in your custody. If you refuse to process blocks that contain transactions involving sanctioned entities, or that contain illegal child pornography, you destroy those billions of dollars of assets. You're not going to make billions of dollars of assets unspendable. Not a snowball's chance in hell. You will process those blocks as the protocol requires. Doing otherwise would be as ridiculous as Google turning off its entire search engine merely because some of its automated actions technically violate laws from time to time. It would be like Intel razing a whole semiconductor fab to the ground because it learned that some of the sand used in creating some wafers was sold by a sanctioned country. There is absolutely no way the US government is going to demand that kind of destruction of value as a matter of compliance.
- salawat 4y ago
  If the government so desired, it could essentially seize all assets represented by the chain, establish an exchange rate, and open the window of the Federal Reserve to redeem tokens when a person provides enough identifying information to redeem their Ethereum for fiat. Essentially making everyone whole for some definition of whole to be determined. It's been done before, in fact, back when the country was fresh out of the Revolution and getting it's feet under it, and disparate currencies consolidated. This is, in fact, exactly the kind of thing Governments tend to exist for.

by WJW 4y ago

amluto 4y ago

I think an appropriate endgame would be an extension of #3: any regulated entity (e.g. an exchange) may not accept cryptocurrency which, anywhere in its history since the last time it came from a regulated entity, went through something sanctioned. This, of course, would mean that Monero would be right out. In general, most of the supposed value of cryptocurrency seems to be that everyone looks the other way when parties do things that look like or are illegal but take the money anyway. Functionality, cryptocurrency is very similar to e-gold, and I see no reason it should be allowed to do the same things just because it’s somewhat decentralized.

Canada 4y ago

> It will not be legal for miners to run/"execute code on behalf of" smart contracts from the sanctioned list, which can be downloaded from the Treasury web site and is updated regularly. This is very akin to how the sanctioned people list works currently. This has come up in other contexts before, most famously the idea of using OP_RETURN to embed child pornography into the Bitcoin blockchain. An Ethereum client must download and execute all transactions in each block in order to determine if that block is valid, and thus learn current state of the system. The client can't know if this "illegal" transaction has been executed until it actually executes it. As an operator you don't have any choice, other than simply turning everything off and "rugging" all your customers. So let's say you're Coinbase. You have billions of dollars of other people's money, innocent people's money, in your custody. If you refuse to process blocks that contain transactions involving sanctioned entities, or that contain illegal child pornography, you destroy those billions of dollars of assets. You're not going to make billions of dollars of assets unspendable. Not a snowball's chance in hell. You will process those blocks as the protocol requires. Doing otherwise would be as ridiculous as Google turning off its entire search engine merely because some of its automated actions technically violate laws from time to time. It would be like Intel razing a whole semiconductor fab to the ground because it learned that some of the sand used in creating some wafers was sold by a sanctioned country. There is absolutely no way the US government is going to demand that kind of destruction of value as a matter of compliance.

salawat 4y ago
If the government so desired, it could essentially seize all assets represented by the chain, establish an exchange rate, and open the window of the Federal Reserve to redeem tokens when a person provides enough identifying information to redeem their Ethereum for fiat. Essentially making everyone whole for some definition of whole to be determined. It's been done before, in fact, back when the country was fresh out of the Revolution and getting it's feet under it, and disparate currencies consolidated. This is, in fact, exactly the kind of thing Governments tend to exist for.