6 ms·
This outcome was as obvious as it was inevitable. There is no mechanism in crypto to reject incoming funds, and all the top addresses are public. Anyone could
by zionic 4y ago
This outcome was as obvious as it was inevitable.
There is no mechanism in crypto to reject incoming funds, and all the top addresses are public.
Anyone could easily send the top 100,000 wallets “tainted” crypto.
- blurbleblurble 4y agoThe fact that none of the popular crypto projects have this mechanism just goes to show that nobody was thinking all that deep about the human level of it.
- encryptluks2 4y agoSeveral crypto projects were in their own right political statements about taking back control and decentralizing institutions. I'm sure there are government-approved enterprise crypto projects out there that are happy for you to use their services, but a lot of developers especially those that work on things for free are more interested in the mindset of who cares if someone sends me free money. You don't see the GNU or similar licenses putting in restrictions for sanctions for a reason.
- blurbleblurble 4y agoI don't think we're talking about the same thing... > Several crypto projects were in their own right political statements about taking back control and decentralizing institutions If these projects are about taking back control, why shouldn't I as a user have the agency to only accept transactions I approve? What if someone dusts you NFTs with abusive imagery on IPFS linked to them? Or spam/scam tokens with funny smart contracts that trick you into doing something you don't want to do when you visit their project page? It ought to have been an obvious feature from the beginning. Spam and public addresses have gone together since forever.
- segfaultbuserr 4y agoThe very existence of a clear transaction history on the blockchain is the root of all problems. If everything is natively encrypted by zero-knowledge proofs or ring signatures, none of the issues - privacy and chain analysis, the possibility of tainting a coin, the appearance of centralized coin-mixing services with questionable security, and the numerous aftermarket privacy tokens and coin-join protocols - would exist. The idea of a privacy-preserving digital cash has been proposed since the 1980s, unfortunately this property is not found in many major cryptocurrencies.
- encryptluks2 4y agoMonero is definitely a better option for anonymity, but most crypto users these days just use centralized exchanges. I doubt the government will take kindly on people cashing out any anonymous currency regardless of your legitimate purposes.
- dannyw 4y agoSo cash is illegal?
- encryptluks2 4y agoAs long as the government can print as much as they want then no. Cash is only partly anonymous but is still a safer bet than a lot of crypto if you are trying to achieve reasonable anonymity.
- segfaultbuserr 4y ago> Cash is only partly anonymous but is still a safer bet than a lot of crypto I strongly agree. If I have a choice between paying in cash or in a cryptocurrency, I would choose cash nearly every time (with a few exceptions).
- kube-system 4y agoIf there was a coin in which it wasn't observable whether you were interacting with a sanctioned entity, it wouldn't make it any more legal to do so. If it shared the same issue of allowing unsolicited transactions, the same problem would exist. Even if said coin existed, it wouldn't guarantee privacy, because information about transactions can be recorded or observed off-chain, and that information can be compromised.
- cowtools 4y agoMonero and Zcash are legal.
- drexlspivey 4y agoBank accounts don’t have this mechanism as well, what does this show?
- qabqabaca 4y agoMy neo-bank (Revolut) has this feature. If someone sends me money for the first time, or isn't in my contacts, they have to explicitly accept it from their app before it actually lands in their account. Ignoring that specific feature, if you did get money sent to your traditional bank account, you can always contact your bank and tell them you don't know what it is to avoid any trouble. This is not possible with Ethereum.
- kube-system 4y agoBanks reject all transactions from sanctioned entities.
- colinmhayes 4y agoBanks don’t just allow you to reject transfers from sanctioned entities. They force you to.
- aluminaient 4y agoGrin [1] requires interactivity between both parties to transact. 1. Https://grin.mw
- tromp 4y agoThis is a consequence of Grin implementing the so-called Mimblewimble protocol. Quoting from [1], > In Mimblewimble, outputs are Pedersen commitments r*G+v*H which combine value and blinding factor into a single curve point. The blinding factor serves both to hide the value and to control ownership. Correspondingly, a single (multi-)signature serves both to prove value balance (non-inflation) and to authorize transfer of ownership. [1] https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoTechnology/comments/kyhgcv/are_there_any_public_cryptocurrencyblockchain https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoTechnology/comments/kyhgcv/are...
- nerdawson 4y ago> There is no mechanism in crypto to reject incoming funds Couldn't the same be said of a regular bank account? This doesn't seem to be unique to crypto. Targeting the most prominent wallets may garner a bit more attention but the end result seems the same. A large number of individuals can have tainted funds deposited in their accounts creating a logistical nightmare.
- jo6gwb 4y agoYour bank has the ability to reject the funds (and some banks will allow you to broadly control deposits with a credit block). Before posting funds to your account, a bank will scan the funds transfer against sanctions lists and only allow the deposit if there is no hit.
- nerdawson 4y agoYou don’t think someone on a sanctions list attempting to transfer funds to an account holder is going to cause them a problem, regardless of whether it’s blocked?
- pontifier 4y agoIt's even funnier when you can create a token with any name you want and send it out... And it's hilarious when they have to pay you to get rid of it.
- dylkil 4y agoEthereum accounts don't own tokens in the same way they own ETH. Token balances exist with smart contracts, so when someone sends you booby coin all they are doing is updating the storage in a smart contract that 0x123 owns 1bil booby coin. Indexers like etherscan parse all transaction events and just keep a tally of what smart contracts have your address listed in balances. By paying to get rid of it all you are doing is paying for etherscan to update its backend that your address is no longer listed in that smart contract. The real solution is to have wallet software that only tracks tokens you care about.
- pontifier 4y agoThe chain I did it on allowed me to set a levy that would go to my account every time the token was moved. I hate that stupid coin.