3 ms·

How much of it is used for legitimate reasons versus illicit ones? If the overwhelming majority of the transactions are illicit, it makes sense to ban it.

• Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  I agree with you, but I'd like to point out that the same logic could be applied to e.g. game console emulators. ...and as much as I hate to say it, I do think the logic might be correct in both situations. (I say this as a heavy user of console emulators—albeit also as someone who does go through the trouble to legally dump his own games.)
  • criddell 4y ago
    I don't know that it's really an apples-to-apples comparison. Console emulators are a copyright issue and those are generally (but not always) civil matters.
  • jfim 4y ago
    It depends on how you see it. One way to look at it is to say "I derived this rule based on what the ratio of licit to illicit usage is, thus it should apply everywhere." From that perspective, then yes, your observation that it would apply to both situations is correct. Another way to look at it is "for this particular scenario, what is the optimal outcome?" If you're running a game console emulator for a system that's not being sold anymore, with games that are not being sold anymore, one could argue that that scenario would be net positive considering the lack of harm; in other words, you get to enjoy the game, while nobody gets hurt, so it's positive overall. The first perspective is called "rule utilitarianism," while the latter is called "act utilitarianism," in case you want to learn more about those.
• dsr_ 4y ago
  It makes even more sense to allow it, and regulate it. The regulation should be the existing Know Your Customer requirements plus a 100% traceable log subject to inspection, auditing and subpoena.
  • asoneth 4y ago
    If Tornado Cash implemented KYC requirements and a 100% traceable log, what fraction of their existing users would continue to use them?
    • dsr_ 4y ago
      All the legitimate ones.
• toolz 4y ago
  if central powers stop being lazy then nothing was illicit. No violence can be inflicted from trading digital currencies. It's lazy policing to try and control resources rather than stop the actual violence. If someone owns a resource, no matter who they are, why shouldn't they be able to utilize it? If that resource was acquired with violent means such as human trafficking - then maybe our policing efforts should be to catch the perps trafficking humans, then they'll have everything they need to confiscate any and all resources those perps have. This roundabout, lazy method of hurting innocent people in hopes that you only mostly hurt guilty people doesn't sit well with me and I don't think it's good for society to allow this kind of behavior.
  • jfim 4y ago
    That may be true if law enforcement authorities have unlimited resources, but in practice they don't. Imagine that a hypothetical service is used at 99% for illicit transactions and 1% for legitimate ones. Is the best outcome for society to spend say 5 million dollars to shut down that service, or 500 million to figure out who is using that service maliciously and sue only the people who are using it maliciously?
    • TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
      Sure they do: Where does the Fed get their money? Infinite promissory notes from the government, to pay the debt plus interest, in perpetuity, Amen.
    • toolz 4y ago
      impossible to answer that question - what if the 1% of activity continues to grow and encourages billions more dollars of pro-social economic activity in the future? All we can know for sure is that shutting down a white-market financial service or worse, blacklisting its users, has the guarantee that innocent people will be harmed. Further: disrupting a single avenue of finances for the funding of illicit activity at best slows down the criminals. The overwhelming majority of crime is financed in fiat and the overwhelming majority of laundering happens in fiat, which can't be "shutdown". It's simply ineffective and hurts innocent people. I'm not in favor of hurting innocent people even with modest efficacy and I don't believe that's what we're seeing here. I believe we're hurting innocent people with little to no efficacy.
• smoovb 4y ago
  How much of $100 bill use is for legitimate reasons versus illicit ones? If the overwhelming majority of the transactions are illicit, it makes sense to ban the $100 bill.
  • iLoveOncall 4y ago
    Well, yeah, it would make sense. That's the reason checks or 200€+ bills are very rarely accepted anymore in businesses (in Europe at least), because they were very often fraudulent.