3 ms·

Bitcoin is not anonymous. Maybe if ran through mixes, but other wise transactions are public and linkable. In fact, if it were anonymous, you wouldn't care as m

Bitcoin is not anonymous. Maybe if ran through mixes, but other wise transactions are public and linkable. In fact, if it were anonymous, you wouldn't care as much about interacting with a money transmitter since they'd only learn that you had money, not where it came from or was going. As to fraud. No, a licensed money transmitter doesn't have to allow charge backs (as far as I know western union doesn't), it's just that it's a competitive advantage for customers if they do.

PeterisP 13y ago
"Public and linkable" transactions are not enough - typical mandatory 'know your customer' regulations would require a proper ID of your customer (not, say, an email+alias); and some indication of who the other party is - enough to identify a specific person/company. Plus you'd need a reasonable (externally audited) process to identify which of your customers are lying about their IDs or the beneficiary names and stop dealing with such customers - so you can't just put some small print and ignore violations. Western Union doesn't have to allow chargebacks in the creditcard meaning (where USA laws allow chargeback for even ridiculous reasons IMHO); but if, say, credentials of some EU citizen are stolen and fraudulent payments made, then Western Union would need to return most of the money even if they can't reverse it.