5 ms·

So the article says the blockchain is, by design as a public ledger, a privacy nightmare. And we have to use it (for some unstated reason). So the only soluti

by MBCook 4y ago

So the article says the blockchain is, by design as a public ledger, a privacy nightmare. And we have to use it (for some unstated reason). So the only solution must be to enable money laundering so people can get their privacy back. My take: that seems kind of backwards. How about we just don’t use the thing that purposely exposes everyone data? If people want privacy then that seems like a design flaw. Enabling (maybe limited) money laundering is not a good solution. It’s a very odd band-aid on the real problem. This is a false dilemma. We have more choices than “enable money laundering” and “no one has privacy”.

baobob 4y ago
If a technology makes money laundering a prerequisite to privacy, the technology itself is bullshit. There's no need to spend words to justify this further. In no other industry would you find for example, "we made a better hammer, but when you use it to drive nails as a minor side effect, it may/may not fund the abuse of children and development of nuclear weapons by rogue states" If you truly believe in privacy, it's okay to simply say the technology is fundamentally broken by design and seek a better alternative.
- stickfigure 4y ago
  That $5 hammer you bought at Harbor Freight unquestionably contributes in a tiny way to human rights abuses by an authoritarian regime.
- celticninja 4y ago
  That's a terrible analogy.
- cowtools 4y ago
  money-laundering is obviously a consequence of any technology that enhances the privacy of financial transctions. You might as well say that any technology should be thrown out if somewhere, somehow, hypothetical bad guys could use it. Build a better hammer that is great at hitting nails, but can't be used to bash someone's skull in.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    No, money laundering is a consequence of any technology that tries to remove trusted 3rd parties from finance while not completely giving up on privacy the way Bitcoin does, which is an absurd goal in and of itself. You can have excellent privacy while not permitting money laundering if you have good, trustworthy banks that properly enforce AML while not cooperating with law enforcement unnecessarily.
AnthonyMouse 4y ago
> This is a false dilemma. We have more choices than “enable money laundering” and “no one has privacy”. Which other choice is there? AML as-implemented is literally a policy that says you can't have digital transactional privacy, which is the only reason privacy technologies violate it when no other lawbreaking occurs. And it has <= 0.2% effectiveness and high compliance costs. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1725366 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1... It's a total failure and it's inexplicable that anyone who understands it would defend it.
- MBCook 4y ago
  I’m fine with AML. I’m not someone who is a privacy absolutist and thinks it shouldn’t exist. My #1 concern is privacy from other people in my banking transactions. You know those Twitter accounts that post everywhere celebrities fly? No one should be able to do that for what I buy. Bitcoin gives anyone that information by design. I don’t like that. But again, I think the article’s solution is attacking the wrong problem.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    > I’m fine with AML. I’m not someone who is a privacy absolutist and thinks it shouldn’t exist. Why are you fine with it if it has significant costs and doesn't even work? > My #1 concern is privacy from other people in my banking transactions. This is everybody's concern, some people just realize that "other people" include authoritarian governments, corrupt law enforcement and anyone who can hack your financial institution and then post everything they're required by law to collect on the internet. > Bitcoin gives anyone that information by design. Monero doesn't.
    - MBCook 4y ago
      > Monero doesn’t. See that was kind of my original point. Why do problematic things to paper over Bitcoin problems if they’re not issues elsewhere. Why not just use Monero instead?
    - 4y ago
Zamiel_Snawley 4y ago
Would you say strong encryption vs government backdoored encryption is a false dilemma too? I think these are analogous issues, and we have seen several times that if there is a backdoor, you can not keep it so only the "good guys" have the key. So this is a true dilemma, you can either have strong encryption or backdoored encryption. I believe the financial privacy vs money laundering is also a true dilemma. If you have privacy, money laundering is trivial. If you can not money launder, you do not have privacy. Additionally, just because you trust the financial institutions you deal with does not mean you have privacy. You have more privacy than you would on a public ledger, but some people have privileged access and can see all your financial information. This lack of transaction privacy does enable censorship[1]. However, I think most people are willing to exchange their privacy for anti-money laundering. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/payment-processors-are-still-policing-your-sex-life https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/payment-processors-are...
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  The thing is, many people are ok with giving up some of their privacy to trusted institutions like a bank - which is how traditional financial privacy works, beyond cash. Society runs on trust, and banks (used to be?) some of the most trustworthy institutions from this point of view. However, few if any people are ok with making their entire purchase history public - which is what BTC does, unless you use something like TornadoCash. Basically, the problem of having privacy + AML is easily solved with a trusted 3rd party that can check transactions while still keeping them private from most others. Crypto's insistence on avoiding trust is self-defeating, as always.

by MBCook 4y ago

baobob 4y ago

If a technology makes money laundering a prerequisite to privacy, the technology itself is bullshit. There's no need to spend words to justify this further. In no other industry would you find for example, "we made a better hammer, but when you use it to drive nails as a minor side effect, it may/may not fund the abuse of children and development of nuclear weapons by rogue states" If you truly believe in privacy, it's okay to simply say the technology is fundamentally broken by design and seek a better alternative.

stickfigure 4y ago
That $5 hammer you bought at Harbor Freight unquestionably contributes in a tiny way to human rights abuses by an authoritarian regime.
celticninja 4y ago
That's a terrible analogy.
cowtools 4y ago
money-laundering is obviously a consequence of any technology that enhances the privacy of financial transctions. You might as well say that any technology should be thrown out if somewhere, somehow, hypothetical bad guys could use it. Build a better hammer that is great at hitting nails, but can't be used to bash someone's skull in.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  No, money laundering is a consequence of any technology that tries to remove trusted 3rd parties from finance while not completely giving up on privacy the way Bitcoin does, which is an absurd goal in and of itself. You can have excellent privacy while not permitting money laundering if you have good, trustworthy banks that properly enforce AML while not cooperating with law enforcement unnecessarily.

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

> This is a false dilemma. We have more choices than “enable money laundering” and “no one has privacy”. Which other choice is there? AML as-implemented is literally a policy that says you can't have digital transactional privacy, which is the only reason privacy technologies violate it when no other lawbreaking occurs. And it has <= 0.2% effectiveness and high compliance costs. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1725366 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1... It's a total failure and it's inexplicable that anyone who understands it would defend it.

MBCook 4y ago
I’m fine with AML. I’m not someone who is a privacy absolutist and thinks it shouldn’t exist. My #1 concern is privacy from other people in my banking transactions. You know those Twitter accounts that post everywhere celebrities fly? No one should be able to do that for what I buy. Bitcoin gives anyone that information by design. I don’t like that. But again, I think the article’s solution is attacking the wrong problem.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  > I’m fine with AML. I’m not someone who is a privacy absolutist and thinks it shouldn’t exist. Why are you fine with it if it has significant costs and doesn't even work? > My #1 concern is privacy from other people in my banking transactions. This is everybody's concern, some people just realize that "other people" include authoritarian governments, corrupt law enforcement and anyone who can hack your financial institution and then post everything they're required by law to collect on the internet. > Bitcoin gives anyone that information by design. Monero doesn't.
  - MBCook 4y ago
    > Monero doesn’t. See that was kind of my original point. Why do problematic things to paper over Bitcoin problems if they’re not issues elsewhere. Why not just use Monero instead?
  - 4y ago

Zamiel_Snawley 4y ago

Would you say strong encryption vs government backdoored encryption is a false dilemma too? I think these are analogous issues, and we have seen several times that if there is a backdoor, you can not keep it so only the "good guys" have the key. So this is a true dilemma, you can either have strong encryption or backdoored encryption. I believe the financial privacy vs money laundering is also a true dilemma. If you have privacy, money laundering is trivial. If you can not money launder, you do not have privacy. Additionally, just because you trust the financial institutions you deal with does not mean you have privacy. You have more privacy than you would on a public ledger, but some people have privileged access and can see all your financial information. This lack of transaction privacy does enable censorship[1]. However, I think most people are willing to exchange their privacy for anti-money laundering. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/payment-processors-are-still-policing-your-sex-life https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/payment-processors-are...

tsimionescu 4y ago
The thing is, many people are ok with giving up some of their privacy to trusted institutions like a bank - which is how traditional financial privacy works, beyond cash. Society runs on trust, and banks (used to be?) some of the most trustworthy institutions from this point of view. However, few if any people are ok with making their entire purchase history public - which is what BTC does, unless you use something like TornadoCash. Basically, the problem of having privacy + AML is easily solved with a trusted 3rd party that can check transactions while still keeping them private from most others. Crypto's insistence on avoiding trust is self-defeating, as always.