5 ms·

What is the point you are trying to convey?

by louwrentius 4y ago

counttheforks 4y ago
Don't use AML/KYC entities?
- zaphar 4y ago
  I can't use crypto for anything useful without it. This advice means crypto is useless.
  - counttheforks 4y ago
    Is localbitcoin not still a thing?
  - DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
    not entirely correct; if you both earn and spend all of your crypto directly as cryptocurrency, then you can fairly easily just remain entirely anonymous. This just doesn't apply to most people, at least most who do legal business.
    - zaphar 4y ago
      For me and the vast majority of people that is a complete non-starter. And the primary value of a currenyc is that it gives you liquidity to participate in the economy. Until crypto can claim the same thing it only barely qualifies as a currency in my mind.
    - ericd 4y ago
      What about when it comes to paying taxes on those earnings?
      - notch656a 4y ago
        Gains can be reported to the IRS without revealing their source.
        ericd 4y ago
        Sounds like a recipe for an audit, at least once they can clear their backlog. At which point, I'm pretty certain they're going to want to know more than "generic cap gains sale"/"revenue paid to me in cryptocurrency". They pretty clearly do not want anonymity in the flow of money.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      If you spend it to KYC wallets (a company providing Internet hosting, for example), you won't be hard to deanonymize as well.
bulldog13 4y ago
BaseballPhysics 4y ago
Something about No True Scotsman if I'm understanding correctly.
sph 4y ago
That many things these days are called Blockchain, as if to appear secure, but they're no more sophisticated than centralised databases, while actual blockchains, like Bitcoin as exemplified in its whitepaper, is designed to be a secure and decentralised chain of transactions. "Blockchain" has stopped meaning anything when people decided to use it for anything remotely related to internet money. It's just become a fancy word executives put on investor decks to woo venture capitalists. But it doesn't mean that the actual cryptographic technology called blockchain, i.e. a chain of digitally signed transactions with a distributed consensus mechanism, is itself insecure.
- seanw444 4y ago
  Bitcoin is traceable due to its very implementation. Unless you know how to use it properly, it's very easy to deanonymize yourself on accident. And once that happens, all the transactions thereafter are easy to follow. Monero, on the other hand, is designed to intentionally be hard to trace history of transactions on.
  - sph 4y ago
    Yes, I edited it out from my comment because I knew someone would point that out and I didn't really want to go on a tangent about it. I meant it's untraceable by some very narrow definitions of tracing. You'd know that hex address X sent money to Y, but you wouldn't necessarily know that X is John Doe that lives at 1234 Main St., nor you'd be able to tell that, knowing address X, John Doe also owns address Z. With KYC laws you have a lot more metadata to be able to do correlations like that, but I'm specifically talking about the protocol and the technology itself.
    - simiones 4y ago
      It's important though to mention that you don't need KYC to attach a real identity to a bitcoin wallet. It's harder to do at scale, but if you're interested in finding the bitcoin wallet(s) of a specific person, or the person behind a specific wallet, this can be done with analysis of the blockchain itself and information from other parties to their transactions (which include their ISP, the ISP of some Bitcoin nodes where they advertised their transactions, and the seller sending them physical goods if they are using BTC for that). Also, if a BTC wallet is linked to a physical identity at any time, all past transactions of that physical identity can generally be discovered, often even if they are using separate wallets.

What is the point you are trying to convey?

counttheforks 4y ago

Don't use AML/KYC entities?

zaphar 4y ago
I can't use crypto for anything useful without it. This advice means crypto is useless.
- counttheforks 4y ago
  Is localbitcoin not still a thing?
- DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
  not entirely correct; if you both earn and spend all of your crypto directly as cryptocurrency, then you can fairly easily just remain entirely anonymous. This just doesn't apply to most people, at least most who do legal business.
  - zaphar 4y ago
    For me and the vast majority of people that is a complete non-starter. And the primary value of a currenyc is that it gives you liquidity to participate in the economy. Until crypto can claim the same thing it only barely qualifies as a currency in my mind.
  - ericd 4y ago
    What about when it comes to paying taxes on those earnings?
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Gains can be reported to the IRS without revealing their source.
      - ericd 4y ago
        Sounds like a recipe for an audit, at least once they can clear their backlog. At which point, I'm pretty certain they're going to want to know more than "generic cap gains sale"/"revenue paid to me in cryptocurrency". They pretty clearly do not want anonymity in the flow of money.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    If you spend it to KYC wallets (a company providing Internet hosting, for example), you won't be hard to deanonymize as well.

bulldog13 4y ago

BaseballPhysics 4y ago

Something about No True Scotsman if I'm understanding correctly.

sph 4y ago

That many things these days are called Blockchain, as if to appear secure, but they're no more sophisticated than centralised databases, while actual blockchains, like Bitcoin as exemplified in its whitepaper, is designed to be a secure and decentralised chain of transactions. "Blockchain" has stopped meaning anything when people decided to use it for anything remotely related to internet money. It's just become a fancy word executives put on investor decks to woo venture capitalists. But it doesn't mean that the actual cryptographic technology called blockchain, i.e. a chain of digitally signed transactions with a distributed consensus mechanism, is itself insecure.

seanw444 4y ago
Bitcoin is traceable due to its very implementation. Unless you know how to use it properly, it's very easy to deanonymize yourself on accident. And once that happens, all the transactions thereafter are easy to follow. Monero, on the other hand, is designed to intentionally be hard to trace history of transactions on.
- sph 4y ago
  Yes, I edited it out from my comment because I knew someone would point that out and I didn't really want to go on a tangent about it. I meant it's untraceable by some very narrow definitions of tracing. You'd know that hex address X sent money to Y, but you wouldn't necessarily know that X is John Doe that lives at 1234 Main St., nor you'd be able to tell that, knowing address X, John Doe also owns address Z. With KYC laws you have a lot more metadata to be able to do correlations like that, but I'm specifically talking about the protocol and the technology itself.
  - simiones 4y ago
    It's important though to mention that you don't need KYC to attach a real identity to a bitcoin wallet. It's harder to do at scale, but if you're interested in finding the bitcoin wallet(s) of a specific person, or the person behind a specific wallet, this can be done with analysis of the blockchain itself and information from other parties to their transactions (which include their ISP, the ISP of some Bitcoin nodes where they advertised their transactions, and the seller sending them physical goods if they are using BTC for that). Also, if a BTC wallet is linked to a physical identity at any time, all past transactions of that physical identity can generally be discovered, often even if they are using separate wallets.