4 ms·

I'm so sick of these cryptocurrency people thinking they have invented something new and clever, where it's just centuries old fraud and money laundering, with

I'm so sick of these cryptocurrency people thinking they have invented something new and clever, where it's just centuries old fraud and money laundering, with some math on top. You can't just "declare" that the algorithm you just made up isn't money laundering, by the power granted to you from having written the procedure down, after having thought about things de novo, with zero actual knowledge of finance and the law.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago
This isn't about cryptocurrency, it's about 'mixing services' for cryptocurrency. Off-topic: Cryptocurrency is / was 'new and clever' in that it combined a bunch of existing technologies into something that previously did not exist. Something "new" about cryptocurrency is that it's a currency that lies outside the control of any government. No commentary on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but in my mind it's undoubtedly 'new and clever' (in full knowledge that most of the world would rate that as arguable).
- chii 3y ago
  > it's a currency that lies outside the control of any government and yet, most gov't that want to ban it has done so. So is it really outside their control?
  - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
    They may ban it, but are they doing, or can they do, anything to enforce said ban? If enforcement isn't possible, can it be considered controlled? China has 'banned' Bitcoin n times. That in itself tells me how well, or otherwise, it can be controlled. Monero is crypto-non-grata in many countries. That just means obtaining it requires visiting slightly dirtier and slightly darker alleyways.
    - knorker 3y ago
      So just like every other crime, then?
      - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
        Depends how it's banned. Some countries block exchanges within their jurisdiction from offering Monero, for example, but it can still get obtained via other means. Peer to peer, offshore exchanges, decentralised exchanges. Owning it isn't a crime.
        knorker 3y ago
        > Owning it isn't a crime. Not sure if you meant "in general". Whatever the government decides is a crime, is a crime. Slavery is banned. You can't own people. For some crimes countries like having extraterritorial jurisdiction, too. E.g. FGM "tourism" and child sexual exploitation. It's not just warcrimes that are extraterritorial. I'm not equating these, certainly not morally. I'm saying that saying "outside the control of government" and "can't be banned" is either false, or applies to any other crime too. And if it applies to all laws, then that's basically the sovereign citizen theory of laws; people getting the legal consequences for their actions all while saying "you can't do this", where "they" demonstrably can.
- knorker 3y ago
  > This isn't about cryptocurrency, it's about 'mixing services' for cryptocurrency. It's the "services" based on cryptocurrency and blockchain that I'm talking about, that are claimed to be clever but actually just reinvented illegal stuff. Not sure why you think a semantic debate is the best attack against me. > Cryptocurrency is / was 'new and clever' I said "cryptocurrency people invented something new and clever", not the invention of cryptocurrency itself. Cryptocurrency is a neat idea, that has yet to have a legal application where it's better than the alternative. But I'm talking about all the other nonsense. The worst being "land registry on the blockchain". > Something "new" about cryptocurrency is that it's a currency that lies outside the control of any government. It's not. It's outside the control of monetary policy, sure, but the government can definitely throw you in jail for whatever arbitrary laws they make. So anything and everything can be controlled by the government. Madoff got away with with it his ponzi scheme for a long time. The government didn't find out. And yet ponzi schemes are not outside the control of governments. If cryptocurrency were made illegal world wide tomorrow, then it would join stuff like CSAM and drunk driving. Control is not an all or nothing deal.
rzl1235 3y ago
[dead]
ric2b 3y ago
You're missing the point of the analogy. They are not defending money laundering, they are defending coin mixing of legitimately obtained money, because many people want to outlaw coin mixing outright.
- knorker 3y ago
  I don't think I am. They don't think they're defending money laundering because they don't realize that what they just "invented" is money laundering. The analogy doesn't make sense, since the difference between the mixer and the jar is not the place that the "money" is mixed, but more like the difference between sex and rape. It doesn't matter in which room the act took place. It's missing the point, just like saying you thought you were relying on free speech when you signed a contract and then didn't hold up your part of the deal.
  - ric2b 3y ago
    If the money is legitimately obtained there is no money laundering happening, by definition. It's just a mechanism to increase the privacy of the user.
    - knorker 3y ago
      Sure. And I would have no problem with that. Probably neither would the law. But if you want to use a mixer to increase your privacy, then you are sophisticated enough to realize that you're an active participant in other people's moneylaundering. The analogy with the jar would be more complete if you know that one of the people putting money into the jar happens to put in fresh sequentially numbered bills. A reasonable person can easily deduce that they are therefore becoming part of a criminal act. If a friend of yours asked to mix their pile of money with yours, because theirs is all sequentially numbered, would you do it? Would you admit that you're probably helping them commit a crime, if you do? Legal commentators on SBF have said that part of the reason his defense was weak is that even if he didn't know about the fraud, it was so blatantly obvious that fraud was happening and he continued taking further actions enabling the fraud, that would make him legally liable for the fraud even if that story is true.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago

This isn't about cryptocurrency, it's about 'mixing services' for cryptocurrency. Off-topic: Cryptocurrency is / was 'new and clever' in that it combined a bunch of existing technologies into something that previously did not exist. Something "new" about cryptocurrency is that it's a currency that lies outside the control of any government. No commentary on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but in my mind it's undoubtedly 'new and clever' (in full knowledge that most of the world would rate that as arguable).

chii 3y ago
> it's a currency that lies outside the control of any government and yet, most gov't that want to ban it has done so. So is it really outside their control?
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  They may ban it, but are they doing, or can they do, anything to enforce said ban? If enforcement isn't possible, can it be considered controlled? China has 'banned' Bitcoin n times. That in itself tells me how well, or otherwise, it can be controlled. Monero is crypto-non-grata in many countries. That just means obtaining it requires visiting slightly dirtier and slightly darker alleyways.
  - knorker 3y ago
    So just like every other crime, then?
    - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
      Depends how it's banned. Some countries block exchanges within their jurisdiction from offering Monero, for example, but it can still get obtained via other means. Peer to peer, offshore exchanges, decentralised exchanges. Owning it isn't a crime.
      - knorker 3y ago
        > Owning it isn't a crime. Not sure if you meant "in general". Whatever the government decides is a crime, is a crime. Slavery is banned. You can't own people. For some crimes countries like having extraterritorial jurisdiction, too. E.g. FGM "tourism" and child sexual exploitation. It's not just warcrimes that are extraterritorial. I'm not equating these, certainly not morally. I'm saying that saying "outside the control of government" and "can't be banned" is either false, or applies to any other crime too. And if it applies to all laws, then that's basically the sovereign citizen theory of laws; people getting the legal consequences for their actions all while saying "you can't do this", where "they" demonstrably can.
knorker 3y ago
> This isn't about cryptocurrency, it's about 'mixing services' for cryptocurrency. It's the "services" based on cryptocurrency and blockchain that I'm talking about, that are claimed to be clever but actually just reinvented illegal stuff. Not sure why you think a semantic debate is the best attack against me. > Cryptocurrency is / was 'new and clever' I said "cryptocurrency people invented something new and clever", not the invention of cryptocurrency itself. Cryptocurrency is a neat idea, that has yet to have a legal application where it's better than the alternative. But I'm talking about all the other nonsense. The worst being "land registry on the blockchain". > Something "new" about cryptocurrency is that it's a currency that lies outside the control of any government. It's not. It's outside the control of monetary policy, sure, but the government can definitely throw you in jail for whatever arbitrary laws they make. So anything and everything can be controlled by the government. Madoff got away with with it his ponzi scheme for a long time. The government didn't find out. And yet ponzi schemes are not outside the control of governments. If cryptocurrency were made illegal world wide tomorrow, then it would join stuff like CSAM and drunk driving. Control is not an all or nothing deal.

rzl1235 3y ago

[dead]

ric2b 3y ago

You're missing the point of the analogy. They are not defending money laundering, they are defending coin mixing of legitimately obtained money, because many people want to outlaw coin mixing outright.

knorker 3y ago
I don't think I am. They don't think they're defending money laundering because they don't realize that what they just "invented" is money laundering. The analogy doesn't make sense, since the difference between the mixer and the jar is not the place that the "money" is mixed, but more like the difference between sex and rape. It doesn't matter in which room the act took place. It's missing the point, just like saying you thought you were relying on free speech when you signed a contract and then didn't hold up your part of the deal.
- ric2b 3y ago
  If the money is legitimately obtained there is no money laundering happening, by definition. It's just a mechanism to increase the privacy of the user.
  - knorker 3y ago
    Sure. And I would have no problem with that. Probably neither would the law. But if you want to use a mixer to increase your privacy, then you are sophisticated enough to realize that you're an active participant in other people's moneylaundering. The analogy with the jar would be more complete if you know that one of the people putting money into the jar happens to put in fresh sequentially numbered bills. A reasonable person can easily deduce that they are therefore becoming part of a criminal act. If a friend of yours asked to mix their pile of money with yours, because theirs is all sequentially numbered, would you do it? Would you admit that you're probably helping them commit a crime, if you do? Legal commentators on SBF have said that part of the reason his defense was weak is that even if he didn't know about the fraud, it was so blatantly obvious that fraud was happening and he continued taking further actions enabling the fraud, that would make him legally liable for the fraud even if that story is true.