3 ms·

Significant US domestic bank transfers are most done by a combination of Fedwire and FedACH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedwire https://en.wikipedia.org/wik

Significant US domestic bank transfers are most done by a combination of Fedwire and FedACH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedwire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedwire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedACH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedACH The raw messages include specific recipient and sender identifying fields. All those messages are monitored and stored by multiple federal agencies, including intelligence agencies. So NO your transfer from UBS to JOMorgan is not handled operationally as you imply other that obviously the Fed clearing account balances belong to each of the participant bank. However the actual recorded and available messages include names and details of sender and receiver! (edit) The privacy act you refer was altered by the Patriot act and is no longer the case. Your financial records are property of the bank and the government can inspect them at anytime without any notification under Patriot act. It took me a few minutes to reconcile understanding of what actually occurs being in contradiction to the link you provided to the Privacy law, which is as I say, no longer relevant. As for mining operator centralization if I can get access to the nber paper without registering (not on sci-hub unfortunately) I’d read it and have a comment. My guess is it was likely a result of flawed analysis and misunderstanding of mining pool payouts.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Significant US domestic bank transfers are most done by a combination of Fedwire and FedACH Sure. Nobody claimed no transfers flow through the Fed. You’re ignoring CHIPS, which does over two thirds the volume of Fedwire, as well the entire consumer payment system. Even ignoring Eurodollars, most dollar payments do not flow through the Fed. This is Exhibit A for a CBDC. > financial records are property of the bank and the government can inspect them at anytime without any notification under Patriot act The FBI always had an NSL carve-out. The PATRIOT Act expanded it. But e.g. the SEC or State of California can’t pull your bank records without court approval. That’s because of the RFPA (which explicitly made bank records the bank’s property). > it was likely a result of flawed analysis and misunderstanding of mining pool payouts Of course it was.
- alchemist1e9 4y ago
  I can tell you are arguing in bad faith now because first you refer to a 1978 privacy law which is irrelevant and not applicable, but additionally when I mention Patriot (intentionally instead of AML 2020) you admit Patriot changes it and talk about SEC and State of California, which for political dissidents would be irrelevant. However you now will perhaps even admit that after 2020 AML there is zero privacy in US banking system even in the CHIPs clearinghouse you hold up. I’m not sure what to make of this discussion. Do you perhaps have a vested interest in the current financial system and establishment which motivates the presentation of information in such a biased approach? For Bitcoin miners there are many ways to see that the system is decentralized and distributed. When China interferes with Chinese miners we see hardware and hashing migrate locations. We see numerous examples of energy arbitrage. Here is a direct link to that paper. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29396/w29396.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29396/w293... I will read it tomorrow and reply again to your above comment. It’s extremely likely they have no idea what they are saying.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > you refer to a 1978 privacy law which is irrelevant and not applicable This is wrong. Prior to the RFPA, there were no federal legal protections for these records. The IRS and SEC could request records without the customer’s or a judge’s permission. After, including now, they can’t. That’s far from irrelevant. > you now will perhaps even admit that after 2020 AML there is zero privacy in US banking system Still a straw man. Nobody said the American banking system is private for political dissidents. Just that it’s decentralised. Bitcoin, by having a single, centralised ledger, is not.
    - alchemist1e9 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > authorities can seize funds on this centralized ledger in numerous ways This has nothing to do with centralisation or decentralisation. Cops can seize your physical foreign currency, gold, and yes, Bitcoin. Being able to seize something is a function of power, not topology. > IRS can issue a summons for financial records to any US bank without any court order or justification This is wrong. IRS summons are an administrative procedure that requires notice (with justification) and can be “quashed” [1]. In some cases they can notify you ex post facto, but that lowers the burden for quashing. To be sneaky they need to loop in Justice. You’re continuing a pattern of issuing confidently worded, starkly incorrect readings of U.S. financial law. > best they get to is that 50 mining operations control almost 50% Count the number of people required to make decisions in this system. That’s political centralisation. A smaller number of people have absolute control over Bitcoin, through their control of mining operations and holdings, than comprise a majority of the Congress plus one (the President). [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7602 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7602

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Significant US domestic bank transfers are most done by a combination of Fedwire and FedACH Sure. Nobody claimed no transfers flow through the Fed. You’re ignoring CHIPS, which does over two thirds the volume of Fedwire, as well the entire consumer payment system. Even ignoring Eurodollars, most dollar payments do not flow through the Fed. This is Exhibit A for a CBDC. > financial records are property of the bank and the government can inspect them at anytime without any notification under Patriot act The FBI always had an NSL carve-out. The PATRIOT Act expanded it. But e.g. the SEC or State of California can’t pull your bank records without court approval. That’s because of the RFPA (which explicitly made bank records the bank’s property). > it was likely a result of flawed analysis and misunderstanding of mining pool payouts Of course it was.

alchemist1e9 4y ago
I can tell you are arguing in bad faith now because first you refer to a 1978 privacy law which is irrelevant and not applicable, but additionally when I mention Patriot (intentionally instead of AML 2020) you admit Patriot changes it and talk about SEC and State of California, which for political dissidents would be irrelevant. However you now will perhaps even admit that after 2020 AML there is zero privacy in US banking system even in the CHIPs clearinghouse you hold up. I’m not sure what to make of this discussion. Do you perhaps have a vested interest in the current financial system and establishment which motivates the presentation of information in such a biased approach? For Bitcoin miners there are many ways to see that the system is decentralized and distributed. When China interferes with Chinese miners we see hardware and hashing migrate locations. We see numerous examples of energy arbitrage. Here is a direct link to that paper. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29396/w29396.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29396/w293... I will read it tomorrow and reply again to your above comment. It’s extremely likely they have no idea what they are saying.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > you refer to a 1978 privacy law which is irrelevant and not applicable This is wrong. Prior to the RFPA, there were no federal legal protections for these records. The IRS and SEC could request records without the customer’s or a judge’s permission. After, including now, they can’t. That’s far from irrelevant. > you now will perhaps even admit that after 2020 AML there is zero privacy in US banking system Still a straw man. Nobody said the American banking system is private for political dissidents. Just that it’s decentralised. Bitcoin, by having a single, centralised ledger, is not.
  - alchemist1e9 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > authorities can seize funds on this centralized ledger in numerous ways This has nothing to do with centralisation or decentralisation. Cops can seize your physical foreign currency, gold, and yes, Bitcoin. Being able to seize something is a function of power, not topology. > IRS can issue a summons for financial records to any US bank without any court order or justification This is wrong. IRS summons are an administrative procedure that requires notice (with justification) and can be “quashed” [1]. In some cases they can notify you ex post facto, but that lowers the burden for quashing. To be sneaky they need to loop in Justice. You’re continuing a pattern of issuing confidently worded, starkly incorrect readings of U.S. financial law. > best they get to is that 50 mining operations control almost 50% Count the number of people required to make decisions in this system. That’s political centralisation. A smaller number of people have absolute control over Bitcoin, through their control of mining operations and holdings, than comprise a majority of the Congress plus one (the President). [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7602 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7602