4 ms·

Your argument is akin to saying people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars because a car was used one time in a heist.

dpkirchner 4y ago
It's more akin to saying people shouldn't be able to provide banking services if they don't have sufficient KYC practices.
- 8note 4y ago
  Is that a controversial statement? That tends to be a law on the books
  - dpkirchner 4y ago
    It's weird that they're calling the feds lazy at the same time as they argue against the feds having data they need to enforce laws. It's also weird that the Treasury Department has such influence over crypto when it is supposed to be decentralized. The anger is clearly misplaced.
    - sam0x17 4y ago
      It is lazy. It is lazy to just stop people on the street who look "sketchy" instead of actually investigating crimes. That is the moral equivalent of our current financial system. We used to have the right to look sketchy but we pissed that away years ago.
- TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
  What part of "trustless peer-to-peer electronic CASH", in Satoshi's Bitcoin whitepaper, did you not understand? There is no banking going on.
  - dpkirchner 4y ago
    I'll make no apologies for imperfect analogies.
  - amalcon 4y ago
    Wait, what? The inventor of Bitcoin said that it was cash? Well, that settles it then: nobody is allowed to disagree with an inventor about what their invention is or does. Sarcasm aside, I think Bitcoin functionally bears much more resemblance to a distributed bank than to distributed cash. It's not perfect resemblance, and there are people who disagree with me. Just saying that it's cash isn't sufficient evidence to convince me, even if the speaker happens to be the inventor.
    - mr_spothawk 4y ago
      > I think Bitcoin functionally bears much more resemblance to a distributed bank than to distributed cash. This is likely because you don't understand what a bank is, or that you don't understand what bitcoin is, or a combination. If you're interested in bank-like things that use bitcoin, you could learn more about fedimint. If you're interested in what bitcoin is, you could just read the white paper[0]. 0 - https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-paper https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-paper
      - amalcon 4y ago
        Interesting how you think I don't know what a bank is, or what Bitcoin is. I know what Bitcoin is; I have read both the whitepaper and (more importantly) most of the code (at the time). I do concede that I have an incomplete understanding of what a bank is, since banks do a lot of different things. Adjusting the money supply and intermediating/securing transactions are both among the things that banks do. Those are the only things Bitcoin does, which is why I think Bitcoin more resembles a bank. Bitcoin can't facilitate offline transactions, which is the main thing cash does that banks don't. I've tried to look into Fedimint, just because I thought it would help me understand your misconceptions about banks. I will admit to not fully understanding what they are up to, but assuming my scam radar had a false positive it seems to be a privacy-oriented sidechain service. That... doesn't seem particularly relevant here?
- sam0x17 4y ago
  Right. Fuck KYC. Just let people use money and actually solve crimes instead of just blocking transactions and infringing on people's privacy like crazy. Digital cash is still a pipe-dream because of this censorship/no-privacy/gov owns your money you don't mentality.
polygamous_bat 4y ago
Driving a car requires a license and registration of the vehicle. You can go to jail for driving a car without a registration or license. In very much the same way, if you are running a money transmitting business, you need to register with the government and follow the government laws. Otherwise, you risk going to jail. It's not rocket science. Just because it is on the internet doesn't make it a whole new thing.
- mr_spothawk 4y ago
  > You can go to jail for driving a car without a registration or license. Since when is driving a car without registration or license a felony?
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    Here is an example: in Texas, unauthorized use of a vehicle, which would include driving a car that you can't prove is yours, can be punishable by two years in jail. [1] From what I understand getting caught driving without a license the first time is generally a misdemeanor, but for repeated offence in for example CA can land you in jail. Running a whole operation around driving without a license is what tornado cash is more similar to, not accidentally forgetting your license once, which is what the misdemeanor is for. [1] https://casetext.com/statute/texas-codes/penal-code/title-7-offenses-against-property/chapter-31-theft/section-3107-unauthorized-use-of-a-vehicle https://casetext.com/statute/texas-codes/penal-code/title-7-...
    - notch656a 4y ago
      You can actually operate and drive a car on private property without a license in Texas. In fact in Texas you can even drive a car drunk if it's on private property not open to the public, like a fenced off private parking lot. Using your analogy, an instance of TC on private property would not be licensed.
      - polygamous_bat 4y ago

It's more akin to saying people shouldn't be able to provide banking services if they don't have sufficient KYC practices.

8note 4y ago
Is that a controversial statement? That tends to be a law on the books
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  It's weird that they're calling the feds lazy at the same time as they argue against the feds having data they need to enforce laws. It's also weird that the Treasury Department has such influence over crypto when it is supposed to be decentralized. The anger is clearly misplaced.
  - sam0x17 4y ago
    It is lazy. It is lazy to just stop people on the street who look "sketchy" instead of actually investigating crimes. That is the moral equivalent of our current financial system. We used to have the right to look sketchy but we pissed that away years ago.
TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
What part of "trustless peer-to-peer electronic CASH", in Satoshi's Bitcoin whitepaper, did you not understand? There is no banking going on.
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  I'll make no apologies for imperfect analogies.
- amalcon 4y ago
  Wait, what? The inventor of Bitcoin said that it was cash? Well, that settles it then: nobody is allowed to disagree with an inventor about what their invention is or does. Sarcasm aside, I think Bitcoin functionally bears much more resemblance to a distributed bank than to distributed cash. It's not perfect resemblance, and there are people who disagree with me. Just saying that it's cash isn't sufficient evidence to convince me, even if the speaker happens to be the inventor.
  - mr_spothawk 4y ago
    > I think Bitcoin functionally bears much more resemblance to a distributed bank than to distributed cash. This is likely because you don't understand what a bank is, or that you don't understand what bitcoin is, or a combination. If you're interested in bank-like things that use bitcoin, you could learn more about fedimint. If you're interested in what bitcoin is, you could just read the white paper[0]. 0 - https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-paper https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-paper
    - amalcon 4y ago
      Interesting how you think I don't know what a bank is, or what Bitcoin is. I know what Bitcoin is; I have read both the whitepaper and (more importantly) most of the code (at the time). I do concede that I have an incomplete understanding of what a bank is, since banks do a lot of different things. Adjusting the money supply and intermediating/securing transactions are both among the things that banks do. Those are the only things Bitcoin does, which is why I think Bitcoin more resembles a bank. Bitcoin can't facilitate offline transactions, which is the main thing cash does that banks don't. I've tried to look into Fedimint, just because I thought it would help me understand your misconceptions about banks. I will admit to not fully understanding what they are up to, but assuming my scam radar had a false positive it seems to be a privacy-oriented sidechain service. That... doesn't seem particularly relevant here?
sam0x17 4y ago
Right. Fuck KYC. Just let people use money and actually solve crimes instead of just blocking transactions and infringing on people's privacy like crazy. Digital cash is still a pipe-dream because of this censorship/no-privacy/gov owns your money you don't mentality.

polygamous_bat 4y ago

Driving a car requires a license and registration of the vehicle. You can go to jail for driving a car without a registration or license. In very much the same way, if you are running a money transmitting business, you need to register with the government and follow the government laws. Otherwise, you risk going to jail. It's not rocket science. Just because it is on the internet doesn't make it a whole new thing.

mr_spothawk 4y ago
> You can go to jail for driving a car without a registration or license. Since when is driving a car without registration or license a felony?
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  Here is an example: in Texas, unauthorized use of a vehicle, which would include driving a car that you can't prove is yours, can be punishable by two years in jail. [1] From what I understand getting caught driving without a license the first time is generally a misdemeanor, but for repeated offence in for example CA can land you in jail. Running a whole operation around driving without a license is what tornado cash is more similar to, not accidentally forgetting your license once, which is what the misdemeanor is for. [1] https://casetext.com/statute/texas-codes/penal-code/title-7-offenses-against-property/chapter-31-theft/section-3107-unauthorized-use-of-a-vehicle https://casetext.com/statute/texas-codes/penal-code/title-7-...
  - notch656a 4y ago
    You can actually operate and drive a car on private property without a license in Texas. In fact in Texas you can even drive a car drunk if it's on private property not open to the public, like a fenced off private parking lot. Using your analogy, an instance of TC on private property would not be licensed.
    - polygamous_bat 4y ago