4 ms·

> No, this isn't removing some imaginary consensus process on money > "The many" are not using ethereum-based money laundering tools, nor will they. Cryptocur

by leppr 4y ago

> No, this isn't removing some imaginary consensus process on money > "The many" are not using ethereum-based money laundering tools, nor will they. Cryptocurrency in general is already a niche activity of techbros and crimininals. The very, very few. This consensus process is very real. Money, like language, is something that is only useful when shared, gains importance with increased usage, and eventually becomes unavoidable once it reaches a certain level of adoption. That's why people use dollars, and that's why they may end up using crypto, unless some authoritarian interventions disturb the democratic process of adoption. > it's sanctioning a criminal money-laundering operation The Tornado developers are clearly not criminals, or sponsored by criminals. You can talk to them at technical crypto conferences. This is a very different clique from the shady operators of centralized crypto platforms you likely hear about a lot in the news (Binance, Nexos, ...), who certainly did have many links to criminal organizations, and did intentionally help launder money. And if we disregard intention when calling something a "criminal operation", is the federal reserve criminal for having issued untraceable paper dollars? It's certainly possible to imagine a money system with strict tracing, yet they didn't implement that. It's almost like privacy is not criminal.

Nursie 4y ago
There is no "democratic process of adoption", because switching currency without a managed, centralised process is likely to be catastrophic. > unless some authoritarian interventions disturb the democratic process of adoption. Preventing money-laundering is not an authoritarian intervention, it's the application of well established law. If your imagined process of adoption relies on it there's something very wrong. > The Tornado developers are clearly not criminals I mean, they might well be, as they've provided this service which is not looking very legal right now. > is the federal reserve criminal for having issued untraceable paper dollars I mean... clearly not. 'criminal' is not some sort of moral status that can be waved away by saying "but they mean well", or applied to people doing things you can draw vague parallels with.
- leppr 4y ago
  > There is no "democratic process of adoption", because switching currency without a managed, centralised process is likely to be catastrophic. Actually this already happens and has happened in many, many countries and time periods. Cities, even private companies, used to mint their own currencies. Nowadays many countries' people use the USD informally. Touristic spots often accept many different currencies. Bitcoin has been accessible to anyone on Earth for almost 13 years. There's nothing catastrophic about it, this is just how the world works. > I mean... clearly not. 'criminal' is not some sort of moral status that can be waved away by saying "but they mean well", or applied to people doing things you can draw vague parallels with. The comparison between a service that allows anyone to anonymize traceable-by-default currency (Tornado), and issuers of an anonymous untraceable-by-default currency (the FED) isn't a "vague parallel", it's fundamental. Both were legal at the time of their creation, one got declared illegal, allegedly because it got popular with North Korean hackers.
  - Nursie 4y ago
    > Actually this already happens Few of the examples there are of people "democratically" choosing one currency over another, some of those (company currencies) are pushed from the top down in an unaccountable organisation and are generally acknowledged to be a bad thing. Tourist spots accepting one currency over another means little. > There's nothing catastrophic about it A country allowing their own currency to die in favour of a cryptocurrency would pretty much be a catastrophe by definition, involving a failed currency. > isn't a "vague parallel", it's fundamental It's a very vague parallel, because one is a state actor, operating with democratic oversight, and the other is a money-laundering operation. You asked if the fed was criminal because of its actions - writing it off as a vague parallel was my way of not just directly calling you an idiot. "Criminal" is a matter of criminal law, and the central banks are established by law. So no, the fed is not a criminal enterprise by definition. > Both were legal at the time of their creation I would dispute that Tornado Cash was ever legal, because it explicitly enabled KYC and AML-less money laundering. It just flew under the radar for a while. FYI most dollar transfers are very traceable, with the right authority, and this is what's missing from a system like Ethereum in general. All this talk about financial privacy misses the fact that financial privacy has been a limited right for a long time - you have financial privacy from your neighbours, sure, but with the right judicial approval that can be stripped away. Making something mathematically impossible to trace is a whole different level and it's not at all surprising that a) it attracted criminal use and b) that the state seeks to shut it down. So I'll say again - if a money-laundering facility is essential to your adoption process, your process is all sorts of wrong, and the world is a better place without it.

by leppr 4y ago

Nursie 4y ago

There is no "democratic process of adoption", because switching currency without a managed, centralised process is likely to be catastrophic. > unless some authoritarian interventions disturb the democratic process of adoption. Preventing money-laundering is not an authoritarian intervention, it's the application of well established law. If your imagined process of adoption relies on it there's something very wrong. > The Tornado developers are clearly not criminals I mean, they might well be, as they've provided this service which is not looking very legal right now. > is the federal reserve criminal for having issued untraceable paper dollars I mean... clearly not. 'criminal' is not some sort of moral status that can be waved away by saying "but they mean well", or applied to people doing things you can draw vague parallels with.

leppr 4y ago
> There is no "democratic process of adoption", because switching currency without a managed, centralised process is likely to be catastrophic. Actually this already happens and has happened in many, many countries and time periods. Cities, even private companies, used to mint their own currencies. Nowadays many countries' people use the USD informally. Touristic spots often accept many different currencies. Bitcoin has been accessible to anyone on Earth for almost 13 years. There's nothing catastrophic about it, this is just how the world works. > I mean... clearly not. 'criminal' is not some sort of moral status that can be waved away by saying "but they mean well", or applied to people doing things you can draw vague parallels with. The comparison between a service that allows anyone to anonymize traceable-by-default currency (Tornado), and issuers of an anonymous untraceable-by-default currency (the FED) isn't a "vague parallel", it's fundamental. Both were legal at the time of their creation, one got declared illegal, allegedly because it got popular with North Korean hackers.
- Nursie 4y ago
  > Actually this already happens Few of the examples there are of people "democratically" choosing one currency over another, some of those (company currencies) are pushed from the top down in an unaccountable organisation and are generally acknowledged to be a bad thing. Tourist spots accepting one currency over another means little. > There's nothing catastrophic about it A country allowing their own currency to die in favour of a cryptocurrency would pretty much be a catastrophe by definition, involving a failed currency. > isn't a "vague parallel", it's fundamental It's a very vague parallel, because one is a state actor, operating with democratic oversight, and the other is a money-laundering operation. You asked if the fed was criminal because of its actions - writing it off as a vague parallel was my way of not just directly calling you an idiot. "Criminal" is a matter of criminal law, and the central banks are established by law. So no, the fed is not a criminal enterprise by definition. > Both were legal at the time of their creation I would dispute that Tornado Cash was ever legal, because it explicitly enabled KYC and AML-less money laundering. It just flew under the radar for a while. FYI most dollar transfers are very traceable, with the right authority, and this is what's missing from a system like Ethereum in general. All this talk about financial privacy misses the fact that financial privacy has been a limited right for a long time - you have financial privacy from your neighbours, sure, but with the right judicial approval that can be stripped away. Making something mathematically impossible to trace is a whole different level and it's not at all surprising that a) it attracted criminal use and b) that the state seeks to shut it down. So I'll say again - if a money-laundering facility is essential to your adoption process, your process is all sorts of wrong, and the world is a better place without it.