4 ms·

Given how arbitrary the Tornado enforcement seems, fully private ledger cryptocurrencies will probably be declared criminal too. While this won't deter criminal

by leppr 4y ago

Given how arbitrary the Tornado enforcement seems, fully private ledger cryptocurrencies will probably be declared criminal too. While this won't deter criminals from using them, it will deter normal people, as publicly offering goods or services in that currency would be illegal. It's not hard to imagine that the end goal is CBDCs having a monopoly on legal privacy. (Privacy from your neighbor, not your government.)

acdha 4y ago
It doesn’t seem that arbitrary if it’s true that he was directly profiting from money laundering as described. It also doesn’t follow that a private ledger would be banned any more than, say, credit cards or PayPal are banned. The thing which would get them banned would be refusing to comply with KYC laws, which is a political choice rather than a requirement.
- leppr 4y ago
  > It doesn’t seem that arbitrary if it’s true that he was directly profiting from money laundering as described. It remains to be seen what they mean by this. Tornado doesn't extract fees, so the profiting couldn't be exactly direct. > It also doesn’t follow that a private ledger would be banned any more than, say, credit cards or PayPal are banned. I specifically said "fully private", not "private from your neighbor", to differentiate with credit cards or PayPal where users have no transparency or control over who sees their data. > The thing which would get them banned would be refusing to comply with KYC laws, which is a political choice rather than a requirement. It's not possible for a decentralized system to "comply with KYC laws". That's like asking that paper dollars require an ID to transfer. They can't do that, they are bits of paper existing in physical reality. Similarly, autonomous consensus-based systems like cryptocurrencies and trustless smart contracts can't just say to users "sorry, I'm not able to serve you until I see your valid government-approved ID", they are "things" not "services with a helpdesk, a street address and a CEO".

by leppr 4y ago

acdha 4y ago

It doesn’t seem that arbitrary if it’s true that he was directly profiting from money laundering as described. It also doesn’t follow that a private ledger would be banned any more than, say, credit cards or PayPal are banned. The thing which would get them banned would be refusing to comply with KYC laws, which is a political choice rather than a requirement.

leppr 4y ago
> It doesn’t seem that arbitrary if it’s true that he was directly profiting from money laundering as described. It remains to be seen what they mean by this. Tornado doesn't extract fees, so the profiting couldn't be exactly direct. > It also doesn’t follow that a private ledger would be banned any more than, say, credit cards or PayPal are banned. I specifically said "fully private", not "private from your neighbor", to differentiate with credit cards or PayPal where users have no transparency or control over who sees their data. > The thing which would get them banned would be refusing to comply with KYC laws, which is a political choice rather than a requirement. It's not possible for a decentralized system to "comply with KYC laws". That's like asking that paper dollars require an ID to transfer. They can't do that, they are bits of paper existing in physical reality. Similarly, autonomous consensus-based systems like cryptocurrencies and trustless smart contracts can't just say to users "sorry, I'm not able to serve you until I see your valid government-approved ID", they are "things" not "services with a helpdesk, a street address and a CEO".