3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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.