6 ms·

I'm increasingly worried that the features of crypto-currencies sought by cypherpunks (like me) are basically identical to the features ideal for money launderi

I'm increasingly worried that the features of crypto-currencies sought by cypherpunks (like me) are basically identical to the features ideal for money laundering. Maybe we need to ask something fundamental (which might sound absurd): "Should money laundering be considered illegal, or a natural human right?" As loaded as that sounds, I don't think it's that easy. There's a pretty clear prima facie case to be made on each side. An avid fan of Satoshi could reasonably abandon unregulated currencies in fear of the social ills they enable (a la the argument from the author of "The End of Money" that we stop printing 50s and 100s, since they are disproportionately used in support of crime, while the rest of us use plastic for large transactions [1]). On the other hand, I could see someone concluding that the world would be better off on net if we don't worry as much about crime, but simply ensure there's a simple way to quickly and anonymously transfer value across long distances. It would be a serious blow to police (and the Woodward/Bernstein's out there) to lose the ability to "follow the money." But there are also compelling economic arguments that lubricating capital flows makes everything better [2, 3]. I remain a skeptical fan too, but the mounting cognitive dissonance is not for the faint of heart. 1. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/cashless_society/2012/02/david_wolman_s_the_end_of_money_reviewed_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/cashless_society/2012... 2. Ferguson's Ascent of Money, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ascent_of_Money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ascent_of_Money 3. Maybe various stock European Community arguments pro-liberalization of capital flows, though some of them look weak right now, and it's odd to use these to argue for a new currency...

DanielBMarkham 13y ago
"Money laundering" is a very recent crime. Didn't have it 40 years ago. Back then people just moved money around as they wanted. I don't know about others, but I find it very difficult to get upset about a crime that's new, that doesn't impact me, and that the world got along just fine with for centuries. (Of course that doesn't mean that I support crime in general. I'm just taking a side: the social benefit to money-laundering laws is not as much as the social downside, at least in 2013. In 1995 I might have easily weighed it the other way) You have to ask yourself a serious question: are these laws being used to protect us from crime? Or are they being used to protect the financial system itself from us?
- JulianMorrison 13y ago
  For what it's worth, money laundering is not harmless. Two ways: 1. It permits crime to pay. Yes, drugs ought to be legal, but "crime" also includes other stuff that has a victim, such as theft, extortion, fraud, fake products, misappropriation of funds, forced prostitution, etc. 2. It behaves like economic globalization, to the n'th degree. Don't like your local tax regime? Pick one, with the click of a mouse. Right now big business gets expensive tax lawyers to set them up schemes where they are nominally doing business somewhere else, but you can bet their expensive tax lawyers are eyeing bitcoin with interest. So what if the roads locally have potholes and the school got sold off? As to why it's a new issue, that's just down to technology. It didn't used to be feasible, except by gold-smuggling or the suchlike. That has changed.
  - apineda 13y ago
    That's why we should be able to support roads locally (via service, toll) without having to hope government takes care of it via extortion (erm. I mean tax). Same with parks, education etc.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      So get rid of all the rural areas and let's all move to the city? That's the only way your plan is feasible. I can't even imagine how school would have worked for me that year I lived on my grandparent's farm without the whole school district having to pitch in.
      - duncan_bayne 13y ago
        > I can't even imagine ... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
        mpyne 13y ago
        Is that the wiki page that computer language designers link to when compiler developers complain that they have no clue how a pet feature would actually be implemented? As it stands what you've done is attacked the logic of the argument, as opposed to giving so much as a weak suggestion of how the problem would actually be solved.
mcantelon 13y ago
One thing for everyone to keep in mind is that money laundering is a big part of the economy and brings a lot of business to conventional banks. As the recent HSBC scandal shows, banks make a lot of money by looking the other way.
temphn 13y ago
Here is an easy answer: sum up the value of all the money laundering crime that (say) the Cyprus government protected its people from. Now sum up the value of how much the government stole from citizen bank accounts. We've outsourced our personal and financial security to large and unresponsive governments; on net we are more rather than less victimized by criminals. The only difference is that these criminals wear suits and have names like Draghi and Bernanke.
mindcrime 13y ago
I'm increasingly worried that the features of crypto-currencies sought by cypherpunks (like me) are basically identical to the features ideal for money laundering. I don't see the problem. Living in a free world is dangerous, and undesirable things (might) happen. But how is it justified to restrict the freedom of one individual, because of something somebody else did (or worse, might do)? Money laundering is just a sequence of voluntary transactions between consenting individuals. No reason that should be illegal and there's no reason the government needs to be able to trace every financial transaction back to its source. Organized crime? Feh... government (or what passes for government these days) is organized crime.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

"Money laundering" is a very recent crime. Didn't have it 40 years ago. Back then people just moved money around as they wanted. I don't know about others, but I find it very difficult to get upset about a crime that's new, that doesn't impact me, and that the world got along just fine with for centuries. (Of course that doesn't mean that I support crime in general. I'm just taking a side: the social benefit to money-laundering laws is not as much as the social downside, at least in 2013. In 1995 I might have easily weighed it the other way) You have to ask yourself a serious question: are these laws being used to protect us from crime? Or are they being used to protect the financial system itself from us?

JulianMorrison 13y ago
For what it's worth, money laundering is not harmless. Two ways: 1. It permits crime to pay. Yes, drugs ought to be legal, but "crime" also includes other stuff that has a victim, such as theft, extortion, fraud, fake products, misappropriation of funds, forced prostitution, etc. 2. It behaves like economic globalization, to the n'th degree. Don't like your local tax regime? Pick one, with the click of a mouse. Right now big business gets expensive tax lawyers to set them up schemes where they are nominally doing business somewhere else, but you can bet their expensive tax lawyers are eyeing bitcoin with interest. So what if the roads locally have potholes and the school got sold off? As to why it's a new issue, that's just down to technology. It didn't used to be feasible, except by gold-smuggling or the suchlike. That has changed.
- apineda 13y ago
  That's why we should be able to support roads locally (via service, toll) without having to hope government takes care of it via extortion (erm. I mean tax). Same with parks, education etc.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    So get rid of all the rural areas and let's all move to the city? That's the only way your plan is feasible. I can't even imagine how school would have worked for me that year I lived on my grandparent's farm without the whole school district having to pitch in.
    - duncan_bayne 13y ago
      > I can't even imagine ... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Is that the wiki page that computer language designers link to when compiler developers complain that they have no clue how a pet feature would actually be implemented? As it stands what you've done is attacked the logic of the argument, as opposed to giving so much as a weak suggestion of how the problem would actually be solved.

mcantelon 13y ago

One thing for everyone to keep in mind is that money laundering is a big part of the economy and brings a lot of business to conventional banks. As the recent HSBC scandal shows, banks make a lot of money by looking the other way.

temphn 13y ago

Here is an easy answer: sum up the value of all the money laundering crime that (say) the Cyprus government protected its people from. Now sum up the value of how much the government stole from citizen bank accounts. We've outsourced our personal and financial security to large and unresponsive governments; on net we are more rather than less victimized by criminals. The only difference is that these criminals wear suits and have names like Draghi and Bernanke.

mindcrime 13y ago

I'm increasingly worried that the features of crypto-currencies sought by cypherpunks (like me) are basically identical to the features ideal for money laundering. I don't see the problem. Living in a free world is dangerous, and undesirable things (might) happen. But how is it justified to restrict the freedom of one individual, because of something somebody else did (or worse, might do)? Money laundering is just a sequence of voluntary transactions between consenting individuals. No reason that should be illegal and there's no reason the government needs to be able to trace every financial transaction back to its source. Organized crime? Feh... government (or what passes for government these days) is organized crime.