4 ms·
I agree with both your statements. There is a tradeoff between friction of a nonapproved system and having your money in it. The US has tried to KYC as much as
by hellojesus 3y ago
I agree with both your statements. There is a tradeoff between friction of a nonapproved system and having your money in it. The US has tried to KYC as much as possible, and the psuedo anonymous addresses have mostly been linked to meatspace owners, so I have trouble completely believing that the currency is completely free of gov intervention.
Any sufficiently large state actor can simply buy a zero day exploit to try and remotely get into a target computer and then steal the pk of the wallet. There are mitigation techniques such as multiparty signing and hardware based keys/wallets, but nothing is perfect. And the most secured active users of it are likely already on gov radar.
- hollerith 3y agoBitcoin doesn't seem particularly useful for evading government controls in the US or the EU, but it does in much of the rest of the world, where the governments are typically incapable of something like the US anti-money-laundering regime. A sensible reason for a US investor to invest in bitcoin would be to sell it in the future for more than he paid for it to some saver in some non-US non-EU country, and most US investors would have no particularly strong motive to hide such an investment from the US government.
- hellojesus 3y agoVery interesting perspective. Thank you.