4 ms·

One of the users of TC was an affiliate of the DPRK, was it not? So this isn't just about "transacting freely and privately without intermediaries". If you want

One of the users of TC was an affiliate of the DPRK, was it not? So this isn't just about "transacting freely and privately without intermediaries". If you want to change sanction policy, might need to go down the policy route, I think.

olalonde 4y ago
The DPRK is also known to use US dollar banknotes, gold, silver, etc. Should we ban those as well?
- RandomLensman 4y ago
  I think we actual try the stymie that at least - but I could be wrong. Why give them new tools?
  - olalonde 4y ago
    By that logic, we shouldn't have invented the Internet because it has also benefited the DPRK. We can't just stop inventing new useful things just because it might also be useful to people we don't like.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    If you try to turn money into a policing system, it will turn out to be an increasingly cumbersome and authoritarian money system.
    - RandomLensman 4y ago
      Ok. Now let's say we abandon policing money the way we currently do (and arguably the current AML framework isn't very effective, looking at some studies). What do we do then? That would be the kind of policy debate worth having - not just anger about banned tools.
      - nnx 4y ago
        Not only current AML framework isn't very effective to say the least, it is also becoming very clear sanction regimes are ineffective as well perhaps even counter-productive in most cases. Maybe diplomacy and mutually beneficial settlements are a way to go.
whatisweb3 4y ago
Hate to break it to you, but one of the users of Tor is probably also DPRK. That should not be reason to shut down a protocol.
- RandomLensman 4y ago
  Why give the DPRK an extra tool? Is the value of TC to society so high? If the value of TOR for society became negative, for example, why not shut it down? Edit: Happy to see the case made for why TC or similar should be there given the externalities. Maybe it is a good case, but I have not seen it.
  - whatisweb3 4y ago
    TC is a protocol that lets users privatize their wallets. "Privacy is good" and "privacy is not a crime" should be enough reason to understand its value. Some example applications: - User wants to anonymously donate to another country that their current regime is currently at war with. - User wants to pay for an abortion without it being easily traceable. - User with a public ENS identity wants to hold ETH on a private account that is not linked to their public identity. This might be for safety reasons, or another reason such as wanting to make investments that are not broadcast to the entire world. The attack against TC is the US government saying "you are not entitled to privacy here, and if you even so much as try to seek privacy, you will be treated as a criminal and have all of your assets frozen."
    - RandomLensman 4y ago
      I think already on your first point you would struggle to find much backing in the US if it includes US citizens being allowed to donate to a country actively at war with the US. If that is the society you want to have, I think you'll face an uphill battle. If you want no or very little policing of money, need to make probably some proposal to prevent certain things in other ways.
      - whatisweb3 4y ago

olalonde 4y ago

The DPRK is also known to use US dollar banknotes, gold, silver, etc. Should we ban those as well?

RandomLensman 4y ago
I think we actual try the stymie that at least - but I could be wrong. Why give them new tools?
- olalonde 4y ago
  By that logic, we shouldn't have invented the Internet because it has also benefited the DPRK. We can't just stop inventing new useful things just because it might also be useful to people we don't like.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  If you try to turn money into a policing system, it will turn out to be an increasingly cumbersome and authoritarian money system.
  - RandomLensman 4y ago
    Ok. Now let's say we abandon policing money the way we currently do (and arguably the current AML framework isn't very effective, looking at some studies). What do we do then? That would be the kind of policy debate worth having - not just anger about banned tools.
    - nnx 4y ago
      Not only current AML framework isn't very effective to say the least, it is also becoming very clear sanction regimes are ineffective as well perhaps even counter-productive in most cases. Maybe diplomacy and mutually beneficial settlements are a way to go.

whatisweb3 4y ago

Hate to break it to you, but one of the users of Tor is probably also DPRK. That should not be reason to shut down a protocol.

RandomLensman 4y ago
Why give the DPRK an extra tool? Is the value of TC to society so high? If the value of TOR for society became negative, for example, why not shut it down? Edit: Happy to see the case made for why TC or similar should be there given the externalities. Maybe it is a good case, but I have not seen it.
- whatisweb3 4y ago
  TC is a protocol that lets users privatize their wallets. "Privacy is good" and "privacy is not a crime" should be enough reason to understand its value. Some example applications: - User wants to anonymously donate to another country that their current regime is currently at war with. - User wants to pay for an abortion without it being easily traceable. - User with a public ENS identity wants to hold ETH on a private account that is not linked to their public identity. This might be for safety reasons, or another reason such as wanting to make investments that are not broadcast to the entire world. The attack against TC is the US government saying "you are not entitled to privacy here, and if you even so much as try to seek privacy, you will be treated as a criminal and have all of your assets frozen."
  - RandomLensman 4y ago
    I think already on your first point you would struggle to find much backing in the US if it includes US citizens being allowed to donate to a country actively at war with the US. If that is the society you want to have, I think you'll face an uphill battle. If you want no or very little policing of money, need to make probably some proposal to prevent certain things in other ways.
    - whatisweb3 4y ago