> I think the intellectual position "it should be illegal for institutions transmitting money between two parties to identify either of those parties" might req

> I think the intellectual position "it should be illegal for institutions transmitting money between two parties to identify either of those parties" might require some kind of logical argument behind it. This is both a straw man position and begs the question. KYC laws aren't the option to identify either party, it's the requirement to identify both. The default throughout pretty much the whole of human history across cultures has been not having KYC laws. A logical and compelling argument must be made for implementing and unholding such laws. > Are you saying all financial transactions should be anonmyous by law? The anti-KYC position is that it should be possible for some financial transactions to be anonymous by law. > How would banks function if they were required to be blind to their customers? While they would not be required to be blind, most have been and by default would like to be. Maintaining identity records reliably tying people to transactions is a significant burden for banks for exactly the same reason it would be an incredible burden on you to keep track of which atm/cashier/couch cushion every dollar in your wallet came from. Some banks may nevertheless consider the option a net positive, and require their customers to provide identification. People would be able to choose if they want to use those banks or not. If the benefits get passed along to the consumer, many likely would choose to. > How would the government prosecute money laundering if all cash-trails went cold after the first time they passed a bank? Presumably by going after the criminal infrastructure handling the money before it passed a bank. Giving up privacy rights tends to make law enforcement easier, but it is a common and reasonable opinion that we should not be trying to maximize the ease of law enforcement at the expense of privacy.