5 ms·

I hope all people here who love AML/KYC and hate crypto and believe it is only for criminals and current legal system is absolutely fair will wholeheartedly app

I hope all people here who love AML/KYC and hate crypto and believe it is only for criminals and current legal system is absolutely fair will wholeheartedly approve this lawful decision.

leokennis 4y ago
Yes...one false positive on transaction screening certainly justifies replacing the current banking model with a payment system almost exclusively used by scammers and criminals.
- max51 4y ago
  You can go back to forum posts from >10 years ago and paypal locking accounts with funds in it was a common problem even back then. Even if you had 50k$ in your account, they would reply to you with a one liner saying they can't discuss the ban. The only to get your cash back was to sue them. A lot of people were speculating that they were intentionally locking accounts with the intention of stealing the funds.
seydor 4y ago
If bitcoin wants to go anywhere, it must acquire weapons, including nuclear ones.
hot_gril 4y ago
The more I dealt with PayPal, Stripe, and other payment processors at my job, plus my personal bank and Venmo, the more I appreciated Bitcoin and Ethereum. Takes a while to realize the full scope of control the governments have via money alone, both as a currency and a payment method. And the abuse of power. That PayPal rule against "misinformation" is the reddest flag. Maybe cryptocurrency isn't the best answer in the end, but there needs to be some alternative even if only to pose a threat to the status quo.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yashg 4y ago
In this particular case Paypal is acting stupid, but crypto still has only one valid use case and that is for criminal activities. Current legal system may not be absolutely fair, but it does not need to be replaced by a vastly inferior, slow, planet destroying ponzi.
- antibasilisk 4y ago
  >crypto still has only one valid use case and that is for criminal activities And we will be thankful for that when we are all classed as criminals.
- chatmasta 4y ago
  If Little Snitch accepted crypto, and people paid with it, then they would not be facing this problem. How is Little Snitch accepting payment for its services not a valid use case?
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  > but crypto still has only one valid use case and that is for criminal activities. Many years ago, I used bitcoin to pay for web and e-mail hosting. Heck, there were several pubs in town offering the option to pay with crypto. I was paid for remote freelance web development work using bitcoin several times, none of it criminal (one example: a car dealership sales portal customization). All of that was above board, reported to government, taxes paid, etc. Providers moved away from it because of sentiments like this becoming prevailing (lots of people used it for illicit activities of course) which is a shame. Public sentiment has nothing to do with what the tech can actually be used for. That said, the environment impact caused is the larger concern to have IMO.
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    > Providers moved away from it because I would say people moved away from accepting bitcoin for beer because it's wildly fluctuating value made it unsuitable for use as a day to day currency, and because they realized it was a gimmick whose inconvenience (for the vendor) was not worth the limited interest in using it as such.

I hope all people here who love AML/KYC and hate crypto and believe it is only for criminals and current legal system is absolutely fair will wholeheartedly approve this lawful decision.

leokennis 4y ago

Yes...one false positive on transaction screening certainly justifies replacing the current banking model with a payment system almost exclusively used by scammers and criminals.

max51 4y ago
You can go back to forum posts from >10 years ago and paypal locking accounts with funds in it was a common problem even back then. Even if you had 50k$ in your account, they would reply to you with a one liner saying they can't discuss the ban. The only to get your cash back was to sue them. A lot of people were speculating that they were intentionally locking accounts with the intention of stealing the funds.

seydor 4y ago

If bitcoin wants to go anywhere, it must acquire weapons, including nuclear ones.

hot_gril 4y ago

The more I dealt with PayPal, Stripe, and other payment processors at my job, plus my personal bank and Venmo, the more I appreciated Bitcoin and Ethereum. Takes a while to realize the full scope of control the governments have via money alone, both as a currency and a payment method. And the abuse of power. That PayPal rule against "misinformation" is the reddest flag. Maybe cryptocurrency isn't the best answer in the end, but there needs to be some alternative even if only to pose a threat to the status quo.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

yashg 4y ago

In this particular case Paypal is acting stupid, but crypto still has only one valid use case and that is for criminal activities. Current legal system may not be absolutely fair, but it does not need to be replaced by a vastly inferior, slow, planet destroying ponzi.

antibasilisk 4y ago
>crypto still has only one valid use case and that is for criminal activities And we will be thankful for that when we are all classed as criminals.
chatmasta 4y ago
If Little Snitch accepted crypto, and people paid with it, then they would not be facing this problem. How is Little Snitch accepting payment for its services not a valid use case?
BeefWellington 4y ago
> but crypto still has only one valid use case and that is for criminal activities. Many years ago, I used bitcoin to pay for web and e-mail hosting. Heck, there were several pubs in town offering the option to pay with crypto. I was paid for remote freelance web development work using bitcoin several times, none of it criminal (one example: a car dealership sales portal customization). All of that was above board, reported to government, taxes paid, etc. Providers moved away from it because of sentiments like this becoming prevailing (lots of people used it for illicit activities of course) which is a shame. Public sentiment has nothing to do with what the tech can actually be used for. That said, the environment impact caused is the larger concern to have IMO.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  > Providers moved away from it because I would say people moved away from accepting bitcoin for beer because it's wildly fluctuating value made it unsuitable for use as a day to day currency, and because they realized it was a gimmick whose inconvenience (for the vendor) was not worth the limited interest in using it as such.