3 ms·

Publishing code is not the issue that regulators should be concerned about. Running the code is the issue. Regulators should treat cryptocurrency "miners" as

by lottin 4y ago

Publishing code is not the issue that regulators should be concerned about. Running the code is the issue. Regulators should treat cryptocurrency "miners" as money transmitters and make them comply with the existing regulations that apply to money transmitters. Despite the claims that cryptocurrencies are "peer-to-peer electronic money", that's not entirely accurate. A peer can't send cryptocurrency to another peer. They need an intermediary to do that, which is the so-called "miner". Therefore a "miner" is to all effects and purposes a money transmitter.

px43 4y ago
No, not all nodes are miners. Nodes are peers. Even SPV nodes, which is what is used in mobile wallets etc. Money transmitters are also required to have custody of funds, which is never the case for nodes or miners. You know nothing about the legal side, nor the technical side of this issue, so should probably stay out of it, because now you're just spreading misinformation.
- lottin 4y ago
  When did I say that all nodes are miners? I said that miners are money transmitters.
New_California 4y ago
You are incorrect. The miner does not intermediate transactions in any way, shape or form. Firstly, miners do not technically intermediate transactions. Transactions are fixed and sealed by the parties involved and can't be modified. Transferred funds are never in a possession of a miner, not even briefly. Miner can't take them, can't redirect them, can't change the amount, etc. Secondly, it's not a specific miner that confirms the transaction. It is the ever-growing group of miners. Transaction finality is ever only probabilistic. If you think picking by law the "first" miner then this is completely arbitrary and 1-block chain tips are routinely orphaned in all cryptocurrencies. Finally, many persons and businesses accept unconfirmed (not mined) transactions, for relatively low-risk goods and services. If you really want to regulate miners (which is making a crime running certain algorithms on your personal computer - a terrible idea), then at least please come up with a new name and new framework, because "money transmitter" or "financial intermediary" is simply incorrect.
- lottin 4y ago
  They move money from one party to another by updating a ledger. That's what money transmitters do. Not being in possession of the funds, or the fact that the specific entity that moves the funds is chosen at random, doesn't change the fact that they're money transmitters.
  - from 4y ago
    It's a real shame the Treasury Department officially disagrees with you in spite of the fact that there a lot of hardliners there (likely the same types who think e-gold was a money transmitter) who would love to agree with you.
MuncleUscles 4y ago
You would think then that the same logic would apply to something like SWIFT, but alas "SWIFT itself does not monitor or control the messages that users send through its system and recognises that all decisions on the legitimacy of financial transactions under applicable regulations rest with the financial institutions handling them, and with their competent international and national authorities." There have to be some limits to how big of a burden the government can put on people in the name of stopping money laundering, the current AML model has huge costs, in financial terms but also in terms of the invasion of privacy - if you've ever had to pass a more stringent AML check, you know how invasive and dehumanizing that is. And it's not even working, estimates put the effectiveness of the current AML regime at less than 1% of money laundering being detected. Stopping crimes should be the job of the police.
- lottin 4y ago
  Funny how when the crypto industry is asked to follow the rules that everybody else already has to follow the law suddenly becomes an unsurmountable burden.

by lottin 4y ago

px43 4y ago

No, not all nodes are miners. Nodes are peers. Even SPV nodes, which is what is used in mobile wallets etc. Money transmitters are also required to have custody of funds, which is never the case for nodes or miners. You know nothing about the legal side, nor the technical side of this issue, so should probably stay out of it, because now you're just spreading misinformation.

lottin 4y ago
When did I say that all nodes are miners? I said that miners are money transmitters.

New_California 4y ago

You are incorrect. The miner does not intermediate transactions in any way, shape or form. Firstly, miners do not technically intermediate transactions. Transactions are fixed and sealed by the parties involved and can't be modified. Transferred funds are never in a possession of a miner, not even briefly. Miner can't take them, can't redirect them, can't change the amount, etc. Secondly, it's not a specific miner that confirms the transaction. It is the ever-growing group of miners. Transaction finality is ever only probabilistic. If you think picking by law the "first" miner then this is completely arbitrary and 1-block chain tips are routinely orphaned in all cryptocurrencies. Finally, many persons and businesses accept unconfirmed (not mined) transactions, for relatively low-risk goods and services. If you really want to regulate miners (which is making a crime running certain algorithms on your personal computer - a terrible idea), then at least please come up with a new name and new framework, because "money transmitter" or "financial intermediary" is simply incorrect.

lottin 4y ago
They move money from one party to another by updating a ledger. That's what money transmitters do. Not being in possession of the funds, or the fact that the specific entity that moves the funds is chosen at random, doesn't change the fact that they're money transmitters.
- from 4y ago
  It's a real shame the Treasury Department officially disagrees with you in spite of the fact that there a lot of hardliners there (likely the same types who think e-gold was a money transmitter) who would love to agree with you.

MuncleUscles 4y ago

You would think then that the same logic would apply to something like SWIFT, but alas "SWIFT itself does not monitor or control the messages that users send through its system and recognises that all decisions on the legitimacy of financial transactions under applicable regulations rest with the financial institutions handling them, and with their competent international and national authorities." There have to be some limits to how big of a burden the government can put on people in the name of stopping money laundering, the current AML model has huge costs, in financial terms but also in terms of the invasion of privacy - if you've ever had to pass a more stringent AML check, you know how invasive and dehumanizing that is. And it's not even working, estimates put the effectiveness of the current AML regime at less than 1% of money laundering being detected. Stopping crimes should be the job of the police.

lottin 4y ago
Funny how when the crypto industry is asked to follow the rules that everybody else already has to follow the law suddenly becomes an unsurmountable burden.