2 ms·

> So what is your limit? How far will this loop continue until either criminals win or people are crushed under a totalitarian government? Not only is this not

by Nursie 4y ago

> So what is your limit? How far will this loop continue until either criminals win or people are crushed under a totalitarian government? Not only is this not my 'limit', I view the incident we are talking about as a very positive move. Traditional finance laws should be enforced in the cryptocurrency space. "But blockchain" is not a good answer to why you shouldn't have to. They aren't even creating any more rules here! They're literally applying the exact same rules that are already applied to everyone else in every other avenue. If cryptocurrency systems can't play by those rules, then that's a cryptocurrency ecosystem problem. > Should governments warrantlessly surveil everyone to prevent such things? You'll note I already explicitly said no to that in the comment you're replying to. You then go on to talk about "muh privacy" in absolute terms as well. This black/white, all/nothing view of the world is part of the problem. I don't think government should be surveilling everyone all the time by default, nor do I think that we should be enabling completely untraceable large-scale money-laundering facilities that can't even be examined under appropriate warrants. There is an entire spectrum of shades of grey between those two. It may even be multi-dimensional, and the entire 'mainstream' financial system lives in there. Presenting it as only one or the other is fallacious. If blockchain systems can't support any sort of middle ground then again, that's a cryptocurrency ecosystem problem. > Yes, because governments... You're making the case for democratic reform here, which I am all for. Democratic reform and democratic oversight. Sounds good.

matheusmoreira 4y ago
> completely untraceable large-scale money-laundering facilities that can't even be examined under appropriate warrants It's just private digital currency. If they suspect someone is laundering money, they should have to seek real warrants and then knock on actual doors. They shouldn't be able to just put the burden on corporations and citizens to do the mass surveillance for them so they can prove to the government that they're not criminals up to no good with their hard earned money. Privacy is a reasonable expectation and these currencies are the tool to achieve it. They aren't to blame when some criminal uses them to do whatever. Are you against citizens having access to cryptography the state can't break as well? Because that's the standard by which these technologies are judged. > You're making the case for democratic reform here, which I am all for. Democratic reform and democratic oversight. Sounds good. Sounds great but until such a thing happens there is no reason to trust these governments. The corrupt buying democracy out from under us? It's already happening, it's not even hidden and money laundering laws don't stop anything. We have these billion dollar corporations lobbying the US government, essentially buying laws that favor them. Copyright industry robbed the people of their public domain rights and these traditional laws didn't do a thing to stop it.
- Nursie 4y ago
  > They shouldn't be able to just put the burden on corporations and citizens But 'they' already do put this compliance burden on citizens and businesses in all other avenues of finance. There is nothing new here, and as I said before "but Blockchain" is not a good enough reason to exempt sections of the industry from this. > Privacy is a reasonable expectation Sure, to some extent, but absolute, mathematical privacy even in the face of court orders? Really not so much. Yeah, we can agree that 'they' should have to get warrants for a lot of this stuff, but services like Tornado make it impossible to execute said warrants, they do a complete end run around legal, legit access to this information. Which is why we as a society seek to stop those sorts of services from running in the first place. Like I've been at pains to say in my other comments here: there is an absolute fuck-ton of middle ground between complete financial transparency and complete, mathematical financial opacity. > Are you against citizens having access to cryptography the state can't break as well? No, because fundamentally speech and finance are not equivalent. The fact that you can use cryptography to permanently obscure financial transactions doesn't mean that we should just allow that to happen in the name of privacy, privacy of a degree which we explicitly don't afford to actors outside of the cryptocurrency space. Encrypted comms - great, services using cryptography to facilitate money-laundering, not so much. There is no inconsistency here. Lots of finance houses use all sorts of fancy crypto to keep their stuff secure, but they also keep compliance records so that if the courts do come knocking with the appropriate legal rights to data, they can deliver it. I know this goes massively against the ruling ethos in cryptocurrency circles, and a lot of cipherpunk type mentality, and that's really why we're seeing this stuff escalate, because as more and more people try to take ETH/BTC/whatever mainstream, the more it buts up against the existing system and the more the regulators take notice. > The corrupt buying democracy out from under us? It's already happening, it's not even hidden and money laundering laws don't stop anything. It is happening, but I disagree, money laundering and oversight laws catch a bunch of stuff, there have been multiple stories of (for instance) Dictators' wives being caught buying expensive property with dirty cash in Western nations, then being denied access to their accounts. I agree, lobbying in the US needs serious attention. I don't think Tornado Cash is going to fix that, in fact widespread use of such services is almost guaranteed to make it much, much worse, especially in countries where we already restrict lobbying much more!
- 4y ago
Wyoming23 4y ago
Something of an aside, but your comment here seems largely well-written, reasonable and a positive contribution to the community, but the usage of "muh privacy" really, really harms it. It makes an otherwise sound argument come off as childish and rude and is derogatory towards people who have slightly different priorities or views.
- Nursie 4y ago
  I guess I'm just tired of this argument, and how much the internet is full of polarised, false-dichotomised thinking, and has been for decades. I'm not going to claim to have never argued in such a manner myself, or that my phrasing is particularly helpful. I also just need to take some time off work.

by Nursie 4y ago

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> completely untraceable large-scale money-laundering facilities that can't even be examined under appropriate warrants It's just private digital currency. If they suspect someone is laundering money, they should have to seek real warrants and then knock on actual doors. They shouldn't be able to just put the burden on corporations and citizens to do the mass surveillance for them so they can prove to the government that they're not criminals up to no good with their hard earned money. Privacy is a reasonable expectation and these currencies are the tool to achieve it. They aren't to blame when some criminal uses them to do whatever. Are you against citizens having access to cryptography the state can't break as well? Because that's the standard by which these technologies are judged. > You're making the case for democratic reform here, which I am all for. Democratic reform and democratic oversight. Sounds good. Sounds great but until such a thing happens there is no reason to trust these governments. The corrupt buying democracy out from under us? It's already happening, it's not even hidden and money laundering laws don't stop anything. We have these billion dollar corporations lobbying the US government, essentially buying laws that favor them. Copyright industry robbed the people of their public domain rights and these traditional laws didn't do a thing to stop it.

Nursie 4y ago
> They shouldn't be able to just put the burden on corporations and citizens But 'they' already do put this compliance burden on citizens and businesses in all other avenues of finance. There is nothing new here, and as I said before "but Blockchain" is not a good enough reason to exempt sections of the industry from this. > Privacy is a reasonable expectation Sure, to some extent, but absolute, mathematical privacy even in the face of court orders? Really not so much. Yeah, we can agree that 'they' should have to get warrants for a lot of this stuff, but services like Tornado make it impossible to execute said warrants, they do a complete end run around legal, legit access to this information. Which is why we as a society seek to stop those sorts of services from running in the first place. Like I've been at pains to say in my other comments here: there is an absolute fuck-ton of middle ground between complete financial transparency and complete, mathematical financial opacity. > Are you against citizens having access to cryptography the state can't break as well? No, because fundamentally speech and finance are not equivalent. The fact that you can use cryptography to permanently obscure financial transactions doesn't mean that we should just allow that to happen in the name of privacy, privacy of a degree which we explicitly don't afford to actors outside of the cryptocurrency space. Encrypted comms - great, services using cryptography to facilitate money-laundering, not so much. There is no inconsistency here. Lots of finance houses use all sorts of fancy crypto to keep their stuff secure, but they also keep compliance records so that if the courts do come knocking with the appropriate legal rights to data, they can deliver it. I know this goes massively against the ruling ethos in cryptocurrency circles, and a lot of cipherpunk type mentality, and that's really why we're seeing this stuff escalate, because as more and more people try to take ETH/BTC/whatever mainstream, the more it buts up against the existing system and the more the regulators take notice. > The corrupt buying democracy out from under us? It's already happening, it's not even hidden and money laundering laws don't stop anything. It is happening, but I disagree, money laundering and oversight laws catch a bunch of stuff, there have been multiple stories of (for instance) Dictators' wives being caught buying expensive property with dirty cash in Western nations, then being denied access to their accounts. I agree, lobbying in the US needs serious attention. I don't think Tornado Cash is going to fix that, in fact widespread use of such services is almost guaranteed to make it much, much worse, especially in countries where we already restrict lobbying much more!
4y ago

Wyoming23 4y ago

Something of an aside, but your comment here seems largely well-written, reasonable and a positive contribution to the community, but the usage of "muh privacy" really, really harms it. It makes an otherwise sound argument come off as childish and rude and is derogatory towards people who have slightly different priorities or views.

Nursie 4y ago
I guess I'm just tired of this argument, and how much the internet is full of polarised, false-dichotomised thinking, and has been for decades. I'm not going to claim to have never argued in such a manner myself, or that my phrasing is particularly helpful. I also just need to take some time off work.