3 ms·

Apologies for the late reply. Was someone making the assertion that money laundering using one medium is (generally) victimless while money laundering using a

by Canada 4y ago

Apologies for the late reply. Was someone making the assertion that money laundering using one medium is (generally) victimless while money laundering using a different medium is not? Can you explain or clarify for me why you believe that is the argument made? I re-read the thread back to original post and I don't understand why you say so.

acdha 4y ago
I was referring specifically to this claim: > These are generally (although not always) victimless crimes. That claim seems wildly incompatible with what we have seen with ransomware, the scale of money going to countries like North Korea or Russia, people’s holdings being stolen, etc. My position is that cryptocurrencies should be held to the same standard as everything else, and found the argument that the improved rigor is unnecessary due to low harm rates unconvincing.
- Canada 4y ago
  Okay, I think I understand. What you're saying is that the rate of criminal activity related to this payment medium is sufficiently high that the cost of total surveillance of all financial transactions is justified. Where I take issue with this is where you call for "the same standard as everything else". The surveillance of cryptocurrency right now is actually very pervasive. I've seen the theft of millions of dollars in fraudulent wire transfers (I mean 1M+ per incident) in the traditional banking system over and over and over again, no cryptocurrency involved whatsoever. And contrary to what people often say, it's not actually an option for victims to reverse such transactions. Thus, I personally doubt this surveillance is effective in preventing theft. We are better off spending the resources to harden against these attacks in the first place. I don't think it's worth it overall to engage in the pervasive surveillance of cryptocurrency or traditional bank transactions, unless the goal is something else, such as collecting more taxes or preventing flight of capital, which is what I believe the real fear about cryptocurrency is. And notwithstanding the above, I have to ask, is it really a good idea to presume guilt and require permission for people to transact with each other in a general sense? And if you do believe this is for the greater good, why not expand the scope of it? Why not put cameras in all of our homes? We have the technology to implement this now, so why not?

by Canada 4y ago

acdha 4y ago

I was referring specifically to this claim: > These are generally (although not always) victimless crimes. That claim seems wildly incompatible with what we have seen with ransomware, the scale of money going to countries like North Korea or Russia, people’s holdings being stolen, etc. My position is that cryptocurrencies should be held to the same standard as everything else, and found the argument that the improved rigor is unnecessary due to low harm rates unconvincing.

Canada 4y ago
Okay, I think I understand. What you're saying is that the rate of criminal activity related to this payment medium is sufficiently high that the cost of total surveillance of all financial transactions is justified. Where I take issue with this is where you call for "the same standard as everything else". The surveillance of cryptocurrency right now is actually very pervasive. I've seen the theft of millions of dollars in fraudulent wire transfers (I mean 1M+ per incident) in the traditional banking system over and over and over again, no cryptocurrency involved whatsoever. And contrary to what people often say, it's not actually an option for victims to reverse such transactions. Thus, I personally doubt this surveillance is effective in preventing theft. We are better off spending the resources to harden against these attacks in the first place. I don't think it's worth it overall to engage in the pervasive surveillance of cryptocurrency or traditional bank transactions, unless the goal is something else, such as collecting more taxes or preventing flight of capital, which is what I believe the real fear about cryptocurrency is. And notwithstanding the above, I have to ask, is it really a good idea to presume guilt and require permission for people to transact with each other in a general sense? And if you do believe this is for the greater good, why not expand the scope of it? Why not put cameras in all of our homes? We have the technology to implement this now, so why not?