3 ms·

I would support it if: 1. Law enforcement was only targeting terrorist organizations 2. Accessing the account of someone that turned out to be innocent would

I would support it if: 1. Law enforcement was only targeting terrorist organizations 2. Accessing the account of someone that turned out to be innocent would guarantee they received compensation But that’s not the case. Namely with (1), US regulators are trying to ban currency mixers, privacy coins, derivatives trading, etc so the “muh terrorism” argument is nil. Most of this has nothing to do with terrorism.

UtopiaFans 4y ago
[dead]
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> US regulators are trying to ban currency mixers, privacy coins, derivatives trading, etc so the “muh terrorism” argument is nil In general, sure. Here, specifically: actual, literal, documented terrorist financing. I'm not a fan of our AML/ATF complex. But recent enforcement actions in crypto, e.g. the mixer being used by North Korea or Binance executives texting each other about laundering for Hamas, are so far over the line of reasonable law enforcement that it makes for a poor backdrop for discussing reform.
- UtopiaFans 4y ago
  [dead]
- alphanullmeric 4y ago
  No, in this specific case. Read the document the post links to. It has nothing to do with terrorism, regulators are just upset they don't get to control what other people do with their own money. And if you're supporting universal bans of mixers and other privacy preserving tools as the current government is attempting, then you're part of the problem. I will never support the redistribution of consequences, no matter what kind of patriot act talking points you use to justify it. We can talk about punishing terrorists if it's only about punishing terrorists and not "operating a facility for the trading or processing of swaps without being registered as a swap execution facility" (page 5).
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > has nothing to do with terrorism Fair enough. The process violation is Binance saying they wouldn't sell crypto derivatives to Americans and then helping e.g. a Chicago-based client pretend he wasn't American so they could sell them crypto derivatives. No terrorism. But also no privacy/AML angle. (We have good reasons for regulating swaps. There is also zero financial privacy pitch for crypto derivatives bought and sold on a centralized exchange.) That there is also evidence of willful terrorism financing probably pushed this up the CFTC's to-do list, however. > if you're supporting universal bans of mixers Straw man–nobody is proposing a universal ban. The harshest proposals would require KYC at mixers. The best solution is probably something lighter, though pitching financial privacy as a basic right against e.g. the backdrop of the likes of Binance isn't doing the industry any favors.
    - alphanullmeric 4y ago
      Requiring KYC at mixers lol. That's crazy. The best solution is to go after terrorists and not redistribute the consequences of their actions to innocent people. I should be able to trade anonymously if I want to. Those proposals are really no different then the EU's chat control.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > should be able to trade anonymously if I want to In a vacuum, sure. But that anonymity has costs in making it easy for the wealthy to embezzle, evade taxes and commit crime. We’re not doing a great job of balancing that cost and benefit. But there is no consensus, theoretically or politically, for the view espoused by crypto-mixer enthusiasts that non-cash transactions should be held to the same standard as political speech.
        logicchains 4y ago
        >In a vacuum, sure. But that anonymity has costs in making it easy for the wealthy to embezzle, evade taxes and commit crime. And removing financial privacy gives governments the ability to destroy anyone financially. Need I remind you that in the 20th century governments killed orders of magnitudes more people than terrorists or criminals, almost 100 million in China and Russia alone. Giving power to the government is a far greater risk than letting some white collar criminals get away with it.

UtopiaFans 4y ago

[dead]

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> US regulators are trying to ban currency mixers, privacy coins, derivatives trading, etc so the “muh terrorism” argument is nil In general, sure. Here, specifically: actual, literal, documented terrorist financing. I'm not a fan of our AML/ATF complex. But recent enforcement actions in crypto, e.g. the mixer being used by North Korea or Binance executives texting each other about laundering for Hamas, are so far over the line of reasonable law enforcement that it makes for a poor backdrop for discussing reform.

UtopiaFans 4y ago
[dead]
alphanullmeric 4y ago
No, in this specific case. Read the document the post links to. It has nothing to do with terrorism, regulators are just upset they don't get to control what other people do with their own money. And if you're supporting universal bans of mixers and other privacy preserving tools as the current government is attempting, then you're part of the problem. I will never support the redistribution of consequences, no matter what kind of patriot act talking points you use to justify it. We can talk about punishing terrorists if it's only about punishing terrorists and not "operating a facility for the trading or processing of swaps without being registered as a swap execution facility" (page 5).
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > has nothing to do with terrorism Fair enough. The process violation is Binance saying they wouldn't sell crypto derivatives to Americans and then helping e.g. a Chicago-based client pretend he wasn't American so they could sell them crypto derivatives. No terrorism. But also no privacy/AML angle. (We have good reasons for regulating swaps. There is also zero financial privacy pitch for crypto derivatives bought and sold on a centralized exchange.) That there is also evidence of willful terrorism financing probably pushed this up the CFTC's to-do list, however. > if you're supporting universal bans of mixers Straw man–nobody is proposing a universal ban. The harshest proposals would require KYC at mixers. The best solution is probably something lighter, though pitching financial privacy as a basic right against e.g. the backdrop of the likes of Binance isn't doing the industry any favors.
  - alphanullmeric 4y ago
    Requiring KYC at mixers lol. That's crazy. The best solution is to go after terrorists and not redistribute the consequences of their actions to innocent people. I should be able to trade anonymously if I want to. Those proposals are really no different then the EU's chat control.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > should be able to trade anonymously if I want to In a vacuum, sure. But that anonymity has costs in making it easy for the wealthy to embezzle, evade taxes and commit crime. We’re not doing a great job of balancing that cost and benefit. But there is no consensus, theoretically or politically, for the view espoused by crypto-mixer enthusiasts that non-cash transactions should be held to the same standard as political speech.
      - logicchains 4y ago
        >In a vacuum, sure. But that anonymity has costs in making it easy for the wealthy to embezzle, evade taxes and commit crime. And removing financial privacy gives governments the ability to destroy anyone financially. Need I remind you that in the 20th century governments killed orders of magnitudes more people than terrorists or criminals, almost 100 million in China and Russia alone. Giving power to the government is a far greater risk than letting some white collar criminals get away with it.