7 ms·

So are casinos, banks, money exchanges, and hot dog stands. There are tons of reasons for wanting privacy that have nothing to do with money laundering. Avoid

So are casinos, banks, money exchanges, and hot dog stands. There are tons of reasons for wanting privacy that have nothing to do with money laundering. Avoiding kidnapping & ransom because someone can’t see the size of your crypto wallet for example.

zeusk 4y ago
You're really saying; banks, money exchanges and hot dog stands have no other utility other than to "wash" money?
- bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
  It’s reductionist but yes - “washing” money is a core part of their function. Note OP didn’t say laundering.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    No, it isn't. Banks exist to induce stability and liquidity (i.e., the efficient flow of capital) within the economy. Hot dog stands exist to sell hot dogs. Money exchanges exist to transfer currencies to (you guessed it) facilitate commerce in different regions. The hair you're attempting to split between "laundering" and "washing" does not exist in the financial world, and would not impress financial regulators.
    - bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
      The difference between laundering and washing doesn’t exist in current financial regulation. It does to those who believe in financial privacy.
      - zeusk 4y ago
        Enlighten us with how washing differs from laundering then; because I haven't had the crypto koolaid yet.
        pigtailgirl 4y ago
        -- as it was explained to me (I don't crypto) - because everything is public - you might want to disassociate (wash) transactions from yourself for perfectly legitimate reasons - not really needed in traditional finance as people typically don't have access to your bank account - however - this is not necessarily the same as wanting to take money you gained illegitimately and make it legitimate (launder) --
        woodruffw 4y ago
        This is the hair splitting I mentioned: no government in the world cares that you're doing money laundering because you're opted into a public-by-default money transfer system. The answer is to simply not use an immutable public ledger for your finances, since you're not required to. The government will not carve out a subset of crimes because of an unnecessary self-imposed restriction on financial privacy.
        pigtailgirl 4y ago
        -- by the same token - it's a bit uncouth to support and provide frameworks of legitimacy for "future focused technology projects" - however not enable services that account for edge cases in said new systems - I generally agree with you - but playing the devils advocate a bit - the crypto folks should probably be able to wash their "cash" if the reporting parameters are implemented correctly - no? --
        woodruffw 4y ago
        Sure: if they comply with KYC and AML, they are welcome to use whatever fakakta financial system they please.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - eropple 4y ago
        There's no such thing as financial privacy when you, by virtue of being a citizen of a country, consent to be taxed on income and investment. Your financial actions may not be necessarily public to your fellow citizens but they absolutely and without possible argument must be to your tax assessor, and this exists to hide transactions from them. Of course it's illegal. You can revoke that consent, as it is possible to become a citizen of no country, but I wouldn't recommend it.
        mr_spothawk 4y ago
        There's no such thing as consent when you're coerced.
        eropple 4y ago
        My poor, so-very-put-upon friend: you can choose to leave. But there is a collectively hashed-out social contract you accept by staying, and it should be of no surprise that the law takes that contract as table stakes and acts according to it.
        mr_spothawk 4y ago
        Tell it to Rosa Parks.
        woodruffw 4y ago
        At which point did Rosa Parks transfer her money using an immutable public ledger? Comparing your financial scheme to Jim Crow isn't the most distasteful thing I've seen on HN, but it's up there!
        mr_spothawk 4y ago
        > your financial scheme It's not my financial scheme, it's the social contract.
woodruffw 4y ago
None of these things has an efficient end in laundering money. That's in contrast to Tornado Cash, which was designed to launder money. In other words: you can use a hot dog stand to launder money. But if you were to intentionally establish a hot dog stand for the purpose of laundering money, the government would be absolutely correct in seizing your stand.
- capableweb 4y ago
  You're almost getting it. We still allow hot dog stands to exists, even though you could launder money via them. Instead, we let police investigate cases where money laundering is happening, and if it happens to be via one hot dog stand, take down that specific one. Rather than banning hot dog stands in general. Same goes for Tornado Cash. It was not designed for money laundering, although you could use it for that. If the US government finds cases of money laundering happening, take down the entities doing the money laundering instead of attacking a tool. If you think Tornado Cash was designed for money laundering, please point us to the documents where this is mentioned. I've personally followed the development of the project, but never saw any mentions of money laundering at all, anywhere.
  - danaris 4y ago
    ...Because money laundering is illegal. No one's going to advertise openly to the public "Assassination services here! Just call 1-800-KIL-THEM!" And no one's going to put in public documents "we set up this company in order to facilitate money laundering."
    - capableweb 4y ago
      Alright, so there is no proof that Tornado Cash was setup to facilitate money laundering, yet so many here on HN keeps saying "was designed to launder money". What does "designed to X" mean if not that the tool itself was intentionally, purposefully and explicitly made to do X? And if that's true, why isn't there any public evidence of that being true?
res0nat0r 4y ago
The primary reason casinos, banks, money exchanges and hot dog stands exist aren't to facilitate money laundering, unlike Tornado, according to the government.

zeusk 4y ago

You're really saying; banks, money exchanges and hot dog stands have no other utility other than to "wash" money?

bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
It’s reductionist but yes - “washing” money is a core part of their function. Note OP didn’t say laundering.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  No, it isn't. Banks exist to induce stability and liquidity (i.e., the efficient flow of capital) within the economy. Hot dog stands exist to sell hot dogs. Money exchanges exist to transfer currencies to (you guessed it) facilitate commerce in different regions. The hair you're attempting to split between "laundering" and "washing" does not exist in the financial world, and would not impress financial regulators.
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
    The difference between laundering and washing doesn’t exist in current financial regulation. It does to those who believe in financial privacy.
    - zeusk 4y ago
      Enlighten us with how washing differs from laundering then; because I haven't had the crypto koolaid yet.
      - pigtailgirl 4y ago
        -- as it was explained to me (I don't crypto) - because everything is public - you might want to disassociate (wash) transactions from yourself for perfectly legitimate reasons - not really needed in traditional finance as people typically don't have access to your bank account - however - this is not necessarily the same as wanting to take money you gained illegitimately and make it legitimate (launder) --
        woodruffw 4y ago
        This is the hair splitting I mentioned: no government in the world cares that you're doing money laundering because you're opted into a public-by-default money transfer system. The answer is to simply not use an immutable public ledger for your finances, since you're not required to. The government will not carve out a subset of crimes because of an unnecessary self-imposed restriction on financial privacy.
        pigtailgirl 4y ago
        -- by the same token - it's a bit uncouth to support and provide frameworks of legitimacy for "future focused technology projects" - however not enable services that account for edge cases in said new systems - I generally agree with you - but playing the devils advocate a bit - the crypto folks should probably be able to wash their "cash" if the reporting parameters are implemented correctly - no? --
        woodruffw 4y ago
        Sure: if they comply with KYC and AML, they are welcome to use whatever fakakta financial system they please.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - eropple 4y ago
      There's no such thing as financial privacy when you, by virtue of being a citizen of a country, consent to be taxed on income and investment. Your financial actions may not be necessarily public to your fellow citizens but they absolutely and without possible argument must be to your tax assessor, and this exists to hide transactions from them. Of course it's illegal. You can revoke that consent, as it is possible to become a citizen of no country, but I wouldn't recommend it.
      - mr_spothawk 4y ago
        There's no such thing as consent when you're coerced.
        eropple 4y ago
        My poor, so-very-put-upon friend: you can choose to leave. But there is a collectively hashed-out social contract you accept by staying, and it should be of no surprise that the law takes that contract as table stakes and acts according to it.
        mr_spothawk 4y ago
        Tell it to Rosa Parks.
        woodruffw 4y ago
        At which point did Rosa Parks transfer her money using an immutable public ledger? Comparing your financial scheme to Jim Crow isn't the most distasteful thing I've seen on HN, but it's up there!
        mr_spothawk 4y ago
        > your financial scheme It's not my financial scheme, it's the social contract.

woodruffw 4y ago

None of these things has an efficient end in laundering money. That's in contrast to Tornado Cash, which was designed to launder money. In other words: you can use a hot dog stand to launder money. But if you were to intentionally establish a hot dog stand for the purpose of laundering money, the government would be absolutely correct in seizing your stand.

capableweb 4y ago
You're almost getting it. We still allow hot dog stands to exists, even though you could launder money via them. Instead, we let police investigate cases where money laundering is happening, and if it happens to be via one hot dog stand, take down that specific one. Rather than banning hot dog stands in general. Same goes for Tornado Cash. It was not designed for money laundering, although you could use it for that. If the US government finds cases of money laundering happening, take down the entities doing the money laundering instead of attacking a tool. If you think Tornado Cash was designed for money laundering, please point us to the documents where this is mentioned. I've personally followed the development of the project, but never saw any mentions of money laundering at all, anywhere.
- danaris 4y ago
  ...Because money laundering is illegal. No one's going to advertise openly to the public "Assassination services here! Just call 1-800-KIL-THEM!" And no one's going to put in public documents "we set up this company in order to facilitate money laundering."
  - capableweb 4y ago
    Alright, so there is no proof that Tornado Cash was setup to facilitate money laundering, yet so many here on HN keeps saying "was designed to launder money". What does "designed to X" mean if not that the tool itself was intentionally, purposefully and explicitly made to do X? And if that's true, why isn't there any public evidence of that being true?

res0nat0r 4y ago

The primary reason casinos, banks, money exchanges and hot dog stands exist aren't to facilitate money laundering, unlike Tornado, according to the government.