5 ms·

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. I

by 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.
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago
        > You contradict yourself. That's a strange interpretation of my words. TornadoCash allows DPRK to steal from Americans and use that money. We shouldn't throw our hands up in the air and say there is nothing we can do about it. We should instead prevent anybody from transacting with funds laundered through TornadoCash via regulation. This removes DPRK's profit and affects normal people by some amount approximating 0.
        notch656a 4y ago
        This won't remove DPRK's profit and the amount of additional suffering DPRK is going to feel is a lot closer to "zero" than the American who uses Tornado Cash to firewall their hot wallet from their cold wallet.
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
        > This won't remove DPRK's profit If nobody will accept their laundered coins, how do they profit? > The American who uses Tornado Cash to firewall their hot wallet from their cold wallet. That provides no benefit to society and causes plenty of harms. Working as intended.
        notch656a 4y ago
        >If nobody will accept their laundered coins, how do they profit? I don't think there's any evidence sanctioning Tornado Cash closes off laundering options for DPRK. Washing through privacy coins come to mind as an alternative. Very easy for DPRK's government mechanism to learn while being much more a hassle for the average American who barely has time after work/kids/training etc. >That provides no benefit to society and causes plenty of harms. Working as intended. Privacy definitely provides benefit to society, including not letting everyone know how much money you have to spend in your cold wallet every time you spend from your hot wallet. In fact I'd argue more violence could ensue if criminals could easily discover who had large cold wallets through lack of privacy, as many would choose to simply go on targetted knee-cap breaking operations until the key is given up.

by Sargos 4y ago

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.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      > You contradict yourself. That's a strange interpretation of my words. TornadoCash allows DPRK to steal from Americans and use that money. We shouldn't throw our hands up in the air and say there is nothing we can do about it. We should instead prevent anybody from transacting with funds laundered through TornadoCash via regulation. This removes DPRK's profit and affects normal people by some amount approximating 0.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        This won't remove DPRK's profit and the amount of additional suffering DPRK is going to feel is a lot closer to "zero" than the American who uses Tornado Cash to firewall their hot wallet from their cold wallet.
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
        > This won't remove DPRK's profit If nobody will accept their laundered coins, how do they profit? > The American who uses Tornado Cash to firewall their hot wallet from their cold wallet. That provides no benefit to society and causes plenty of harms. Working as intended.
        notch656a 4y ago
        >If nobody will accept their laundered coins, how do they profit? I don't think there's any evidence sanctioning Tornado Cash closes off laundering options for DPRK. Washing through privacy coins come to mind as an alternative. Very easy for DPRK's government mechanism to learn while being much more a hassle for the average American who barely has time after work/kids/training etc. >That provides no benefit to society and causes plenty of harms. Working as intended. Privacy definitely provides benefit to society, including not letting everyone know how much money you have to spend in your cold wallet every time you spend from your hot wallet. In fact I'd argue more violence could ensue if criminals could easily discover who had large cold wallets through lack of privacy, as many would choose to simply go on targetted knee-cap breaking operations until the key is given up.