3 ms·
now using a "Trusted mixer" is how you get your door kicked in. None of them is the answer. It's different if you are using a protocol. I am free to execute cod
by TrapLord_Rhodo 3y ago
now using a "Trusted mixer" is how you get your door kicked in. None of them is the answer. It's different if you are using a protocol. I am free to execute code as I wish. But an entity "pooling funds together, and distributing them" is obviously a KYC trigger. If said entity is violated KYC laws, they can be punished under international money laundering laws.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lxgr 3y ago> It's different if you are using a protocol. I am free to execute code as I wish. You're absolutely not. Intentions and outcomes matter, and courts won't care if you achieved the outcome "money laundering" via on-chain code or good old face-to-face meetings and moneys in sports bags. Note that "writing code that can also be used to facilitate money laundering", "writing code that can reasonably only be used to facilitate money laundering", "writing code that facilitates money laundering and operating it yourself (or selling it for money or a licensing fee to somebody that does)" are all different points on a spectrum.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 3y agoThe main crux of my argument there was the KYC trigger. using centralized mizers, you have having a centralized wallet, without ZK-proofing the headers of the wallet, distributing funds. This can be traced, and in some miners or CIA database, all transactions from that wallet are flagged. > "All of them" would effectively amount to a ban of mixers. Again, centralized mixers will be banned. You can plug all the exits to your centralized currency, but you cannot stop someone from trading in the cryptosphere utilizing various "Decentralized mixers" with proper ZK proofs, and headless wallet ledgers.