5 ms·

What a gigantic piece of FUD. > How do governments collect taxes on transactions in Bitcoin? The answer is they don't, and they can't. Crypto-currency's strong

What a gigantic piece of FUD. > How do governments collect taxes on transactions in Bitcoin? The answer is they don't, and they can't. Crypto-currency's strong protections on anonymity make it impossible for any state to know who is buying what, who is paying whom, who earns what, and who has what in savings. BS! The state seems to be surviving just fine with its "inability" to track who is buying what with cash, and it could easily require and enforce documentation of large purchases (such as houses, cars, etc. as it already does btw). > 2. Police:It would be almost impossible for states to detect certain crimes. One of the major alleged uses of Bitcoin -- though, of course, one can never truly know -- is buying illicit drugs. Ohhhh noooo!! Cry me a river!! You mean the batshit insane war on drugs that has destroyed countless lives will become even more ineffective than it already is?!? Please oh please, don't throw me into the briar patch! Every one of these points applies equally to cash. Might as well write a second article titled: "Cash: An Existential threat to the modern liberal state" BTW, there's nothing liberal about the war on drugs, the very existence of which is a cruel affront to basic human liberties. > In a world where many transactions are anonymous, it’s unclear how governments could even compile accurate economic data, without which macroeconomic policy is impossible. How exactly does having a public history of every transaction ever made somehow make it "impossible" to glean any useful economic data from it? Add to it knowledge of certain transactions (such as those that go through companies), and you start to get a pretty clear picture of exactly what's going on.

mbetter 14y ago
I'm not sure why that second sentence is there, it doesn't really make much sense. The rest of the point is valid, especially regarding money laundering.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  Why should we ever care about money laundering when they didn't punish HSBC? They aren't serious about this issue, why should we care?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Because HSBC wasn't doing the money laundering. The charge was a failing to exercise the controls required by banking laws. See: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/11/hsbc-laundering-probe/1760351/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/11/hsbc...
    - guard-of-terra 14y ago
      "for years deliberately channeled hundreds of millions of dollars of the prohibited transactions" If that isn't money laundering then what is? The charge means nothing. Show me one person behind bars; until then the charge means nothing.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        Your ISP "deliberately" routes child pornography over their networks all the time--that doesn't make them distributors of child pornography. HSBC provides a banking service. Unlike with ISPs, they are responsible for overseeing how their service is used, to prevent money laundering. Failing to oversee the employees who failed to follow the regulations designed to prevent HSBC's service being used for money laundering is not the same thing as actually money laundering (juicy reporting aside).
        guard-of-terra 14y ago
        HSBC knew what they were doing, that is things were explicitly illegal, and profited from that. Who actually launders money then? Hint: it's not mobsters since their craft is illegal by itself and therefore no separate law for laundering would be needed.
        rayiner 14y ago
        > HSBC knew what they were doing, that is things were explicitly illegal, and profited from that. The whole point is that the government couldn't prove that HSBC knew what was going on. The only thing they could prove was that the internal controls were broken (and that they knew they were broken and did nothing to fix it).
readme 14y ago
"Bitcoin is interfering with the ability of the government to stop consensual transactions between adults." UH OH
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  I wonder how anyone can think that is the case. Can the government stop me from buying something with USD? Not a chance.
  - coldtea 14y ago
    >Can the government stop me from buying something with USD? Not a chance. What? Of course they can. They can get a warrant and bust into your house and put you in jail if they have basis to believe you have bought something they think you shouldn't have (drugs, child porn, slaves, and tons of other things).
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
      Sure, they can penalize me after, but they can't actually stop me from buying something I shouldn't have. Precisely the same with bitcoin.
      - tantalor 14y ago
        You're implying that there are always back channels? What if they could effectively limit the supply of something? Can you buy a live sample of measles?
        sliverstorm 14y ago
        You're getting way off track here. The assertion was that the government is afraid that it can't stop you from spending bitcoins, the implication being that it can with cash. Bitcoin vs. USD doesn't solve your ability to purchase weaponized measles.

mbetter 14y ago

I'm not sure why that second sentence is there, it doesn't really make much sense. The rest of the point is valid, especially regarding money laundering.

guard-of-terra 14y ago
Why should we ever care about money laundering when they didn't punish HSBC? They aren't serious about this issue, why should we care?
- rayiner 14y ago
  Because HSBC wasn't doing the money laundering. The charge was a failing to exercise the controls required by banking laws. See: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/11/hsbc-laundering-probe/1760351/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/11/hsbc...
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    "for years deliberately channeled hundreds of millions of dollars of the prohibited transactions" If that isn't money laundering then what is? The charge means nothing. Show me one person behind bars; until then the charge means nothing.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Your ISP "deliberately" routes child pornography over their networks all the time--that doesn't make them distributors of child pornography. HSBC provides a banking service. Unlike with ISPs, they are responsible for overseeing how their service is used, to prevent money laundering. Failing to oversee the employees who failed to follow the regulations designed to prevent HSBC's service being used for money laundering is not the same thing as actually money laundering (juicy reporting aside).
      - guard-of-terra 14y ago
        HSBC knew what they were doing, that is things were explicitly illegal, and profited from that. Who actually launders money then? Hint: it's not mobsters since their craft is illegal by itself and therefore no separate law for laundering would be needed.
        rayiner 14y ago
        > HSBC knew what they were doing, that is things were explicitly illegal, and profited from that. The whole point is that the government couldn't prove that HSBC knew what was going on. The only thing they could prove was that the internal controls were broken (and that they knew they were broken and did nothing to fix it).

readme 14y ago

"Bitcoin is interfering with the ability of the government to stop consensual transactions between adults." UH OH

sliverstorm 14y ago
I wonder how anyone can think that is the case. Can the government stop me from buying something with USD? Not a chance.
- coldtea 14y ago
  >Can the government stop me from buying something with USD? Not a chance. What? Of course they can. They can get a warrant and bust into your house and put you in jail if they have basis to believe you have bought something they think you shouldn't have (drugs, child porn, slaves, and tons of other things).
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    Sure, they can penalize me after, but they can't actually stop me from buying something I shouldn't have. Precisely the same with bitcoin.
    - tantalor 14y ago
      You're implying that there are always back channels? What if they could effectively limit the supply of something? Can you buy a live sample of measles?
      - sliverstorm 14y ago
        You're getting way off track here. The assertion was that the government is afraid that it can't stop you from spending bitcoins, the implication being that it can with cash. Bitcoin vs. USD doesn't solve your ability to purchase weaponized measles.