4 ms·

I don't get what you're saying. The reality is, that because of KYC/AML laws it's difficult for ordinary people to replace cash with crypto, which - if it were

I don't get what you're saying. The reality is, that because of KYC/AML laws it's difficult for ordinary people to replace cash with crypto, which - if it were easy - would be a superior form of money and transacting as any amount from tenths of a cent to billions, moves frictionlessly.

pxx 2y ago
lol
oersted 2y ago
You do have a point there, KYC/AML does tend to make a few large exchanges a trust bottleneck. But still, would you bet a billion dollars that whatever crypto system you are using has no bugs, vulnerabilities or backdoors? Are you going to audit the whole codebase yourself and trust your technical assessment? Do you even have access to the code that is deployed?
- robxorb 2y ago
  This is a very important issue you raise. In terms of the blockchains themselves, they all have a kind of built-in bounty, in that if on-chain funds have inherent risk of being lost or taken due to faults in the system, this will have happened - as the biggest / most popular systems are valued in the multi-billions. Ie, a huge bounty if an exploit exists. To my knowledge, this has not occurred to date with any of the major systems themselves. It's important not to mistake the above with a different issue of trusting applications development built on blockchain projects. Almost all blockchains have kind of two layers of functionality. The base layer allows self-custody and transfer. Above that, people can build other things using smart contract languages, or hardware solutions, or software that interacts with the chain. Those can have huge bugs or be outright scams. It's a bit like HTTPS could be provably secure, but that doesn't mean if you visit https://dodgy-website.com-dodgy.tk https://dodgy-website.com-dodgy.tk you're protected against it doing something dodgy. The different is while HTTPS is limited in its user-facing application, the base layer of say Bitcoin or Ethereum isn't so much. People can securely store and transact any amount with anyone worldwide, sometimes in seconds, with complete finality and determinism, without needing to trust anyone in between. In almost all cases, you also have access to the code, and can build it yourself. But as mentioned, the built-in bounty acts as your best security. Eg, if there was a hole in the base layer of Bitcoin right now, there's hundreds of billions up for grabs.
sofixa 2y ago
> which - if it were easy - would be a superior form of money and transacting as any amount from tenths of a cent to billions, moves frictionlessly. We already have that in many countries. Yes, it's subject to AML/KYC regulations, and? Why is that a problem? It's only a problem if you want to remain anonymous (which you don't, really, with crypto), which is a very niche use of money. A lot of it related to crime too, which makes it hard to justify.
- robxorb 2y ago
  It's a problem because AML/KYC laws are created and enforced by governments, who sometimes are also the criminals such laws are supposedly created to protect us all from. Under a corrupt regime, crypto is a potential corrective force. If governments are acting fairly, some of crypto's use-cases will simply not be adopted en masse. If they're not acting fairly, it will all have huge take up. In that sense it's like a check and balance on democratic values. This has demonstrably been the case in many countries. Governments that come down extremely heavy-handed against it, are almost certainly themselves either corrupt in the worst case, or against common democratic principles of freedom and personal sovereignty in the best case. The common BS trotted out is that crypto os used for financing terrorism. The reality is, cash is used for financing terrorism, banks are used for financing terrorism, and governments are used for financing terrorism. Why target only crypto for this? Because it's a ruse. It's being targeted for other reasons. A government truly "for the people, and by the people", would welcome the people being more easily able to transfer value between each other and hold it closer to them without a middle-man they need to trust.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    > Why target only crypto for this? Because it's a ruse. It's being targeted for other reasons. What are those reasons? I'm not doubting you, I actually don't understand.
    - robxorb 2y ago
      If free to evolve unrestrained, crypto would likely eventuate in a future where governments are less relevant, less powerful, and smaller. A government structure concerned more with self-preservation, will - accurately - perceive crypto as a threat to its antithetic hegemony, through a diminished ability to, for example: - conduct itself without transparency. In a functionally-crypto world, government transactions would be immediately and openly public and auditable by anyone, and likely so automated. Currently, months long latency and bureaucratic obfuscation work against accountability. - unfairly freeze assets for the purposes of self-preservation or power. In many cases there could well be no ability to freeze assets at all. (Private keys can be stored in minds, and this can be plausibly denied.) - control the economy, and so ultimately, manipulate every aspect of a populations direction. A sufficiently smart-contract operated world could decentralise and democratise economic "policy" so much it may no longer fit inside that definition, as it may potentially become less of an affectation and more of an effect. A proposed downside of all this is it simply may not work. I don't buy that. I think the main problems we have as a species are in how we allow ourselves to be exploitable. Building in greater sovereignty is the solution, not a problem.
nl 2y ago
Oh you actually want to get rid of KYC? We already know crypto is being used for real, actual terrorist funding[1]. How do propose to balance access to crypto against that real harm? KYC rules seems a reasonable compromise here. [1] https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1925 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1925 (note funding of ISIS amongst others)

pxx 2y ago

lol

oersted 2y ago

You do have a point there, KYC/AML does tend to make a few large exchanges a trust bottleneck. But still, would you bet a billion dollars that whatever crypto system you are using has no bugs, vulnerabilities or backdoors? Are you going to audit the whole codebase yourself and trust your technical assessment? Do you even have access to the code that is deployed?

robxorb 2y ago
This is a very important issue you raise. In terms of the blockchains themselves, they all have a kind of built-in bounty, in that if on-chain funds have inherent risk of being lost or taken due to faults in the system, this will have happened - as the biggest / most popular systems are valued in the multi-billions. Ie, a huge bounty if an exploit exists. To my knowledge, this has not occurred to date with any of the major systems themselves. It's important not to mistake the above with a different issue of trusting applications development built on blockchain projects. Almost all blockchains have kind of two layers of functionality. The base layer allows self-custody and transfer. Above that, people can build other things using smart contract languages, or hardware solutions, or software that interacts with the chain. Those can have huge bugs or be outright scams. It's a bit like HTTPS could be provably secure, but that doesn't mean if you visit https://dodgy-website.com-dodgy.tk https://dodgy-website.com-dodgy.tk you're protected against it doing something dodgy. The different is while HTTPS is limited in its user-facing application, the base layer of say Bitcoin or Ethereum isn't so much. People can securely store and transact any amount with anyone worldwide, sometimes in seconds, with complete finality and determinism, without needing to trust anyone in between. In almost all cases, you also have access to the code, and can build it yourself. But as mentioned, the built-in bounty acts as your best security. Eg, if there was a hole in the base layer of Bitcoin right now, there's hundreds of billions up for grabs.

sofixa 2y ago

> which - if it were easy - would be a superior form of money and transacting as any amount from tenths of a cent to billions, moves frictionlessly. We already have that in many countries. Yes, it's subject to AML/KYC regulations, and? Why is that a problem? It's only a problem if you want to remain anonymous (which you don't, really, with crypto), which is a very niche use of money. A lot of it related to crime too, which makes it hard to justify.

robxorb 2y ago
It's a problem because AML/KYC laws are created and enforced by governments, who sometimes are also the criminals such laws are supposedly created to protect us all from. Under a corrupt regime, crypto is a potential corrective force. If governments are acting fairly, some of crypto's use-cases will simply not be adopted en masse. If they're not acting fairly, it will all have huge take up. In that sense it's like a check and balance on democratic values. This has demonstrably been the case in many countries. Governments that come down extremely heavy-handed against it, are almost certainly themselves either corrupt in the worst case, or against common democratic principles of freedom and personal sovereignty in the best case. The common BS trotted out is that crypto os used for financing terrorism. The reality is, cash is used for financing terrorism, banks are used for financing terrorism, and governments are used for financing terrorism. Why target only crypto for this? Because it's a ruse. It's being targeted for other reasons. A government truly "for the people, and by the people", would welcome the people being more easily able to transfer value between each other and hold it closer to them without a middle-man they need to trust.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  > Why target only crypto for this? Because it's a ruse. It's being targeted for other reasons. What are those reasons? I'm not doubting you, I actually don't understand.
  - robxorb 2y ago
    If free to evolve unrestrained, crypto would likely eventuate in a future where governments are less relevant, less powerful, and smaller. A government structure concerned more with self-preservation, will - accurately - perceive crypto as a threat to its antithetic hegemony, through a diminished ability to, for example: - conduct itself without transparency. In a functionally-crypto world, government transactions would be immediately and openly public and auditable by anyone, and likely so automated. Currently, months long latency and bureaucratic obfuscation work against accountability. - unfairly freeze assets for the purposes of self-preservation or power. In many cases there could well be no ability to freeze assets at all. (Private keys can be stored in minds, and this can be plausibly denied.) - control the economy, and so ultimately, manipulate every aspect of a populations direction. A sufficiently smart-contract operated world could decentralise and democratise economic "policy" so much it may no longer fit inside that definition, as it may potentially become less of an affectation and more of an effect. A proposed downside of all this is it simply may not work. I don't buy that. I think the main problems we have as a species are in how we allow ourselves to be exploitable. Building in greater sovereignty is the solution, not a problem.

nl 2y ago

Oh you actually want to get rid of KYC? We already know crypto is being used for real, actual terrorist funding[1]. How do propose to balance access to crypto against that real harm? KYC rules seems a reasonable compromise here. [1] https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1925 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1925 (note funding of ISIS amongst others)