6 ms·

> A lot of work is currently going into trustless mixing/anonymising Call it what it is, money laundering.

by gnaritas 13y ago

VMG 13y ago
It isn't.
- hbags 13y ago
  A mixer's sole purpose in life is collect a fee for concealing sources of money. It's textbook money laundering.
  - VMG 13y ago
    Except with Bitcoin, there are valid reasons to conceal the source and destination of money from the public besides criminal activity. The money being "laundered" isn't necessarily "dirty" to begin with. The same logic applies to encryption. People have a right to privacy.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      It doesn't matter what the reasons are, or whether you have a right to it, if you're trying to conceal where money came from, it's money laundering.
      - bobwaycott 13y ago
        Only if that money is the proceeds of a crime and you're attempting to conceal the source of the illegal funds. The flippant and universalizing way several of the commenters here are referring to money laundering as "concealing where the money came from" cast far too wide a net. The definition you're using here would include concealing where $500 came from that was donated by anonymous friends to give to another friend in need. Suddenly, by your metric, if any of the friends suspected of donating the cash to help someone don't fess up to the source of the cash, they're laundering money. Yeah, that's ridiculous. But it fits your description. Money laundering requires the currency be earnings from criminal activity.
        PeterisP 13y ago
        If you're running a coin mixing service that makes the coins anonymous to others then as soon as a single transaction is true money laundering (from criminal activity), then you're liable for that. If a single Fed sting operation on silkroad buys drugs for some bitcoin that afterwards gets to your service - you're going down. Pretty much the only way to do so 'properly' would require you to make the coins anonymous to the public, but ID all of your customers and keep records on who actually gets which coins in the end.
        bobwaycott 13y ago
        Like the other commenter, you're speaking to a different angle. I was commenting strictly on the repeated blanket statements made throughout these comments that any concealing of the source of money == money laundering. I was not speaking to liability ramifications of running a coin mixing service at all. I wasn't even contending that there might not be legitimate claims made against bitcoin activity that could be money laundering. The act of concealing where money came from as a general principle is not itself money laundering. Yes, running a service that facilitates concealing the source of money can quickly become a target and risk liability for laundering activities. That is still, however, an entirely different point.
        hbags 13y ago
        Put your money where your mouth is. Openly run a mixer. Openly advertise that you are the person who operates it. If you're right and I'm wrong, it'll be a lucrative business and you'll probably quickly dominate the mixer industry, as it'd be very easy for you to get press and build name recognition. You could do it as a very part-time job. If I'm right and you're wrong, you'll be in prison.
        bobwaycott 13y ago
        You're not responding to the point I wrote, or the parent comment to which I replied.
    - PeterisP 13y ago
      There can be (and are) regulations that may (in particular circumstances) make illegal to conceal the source and destination of money transfers even if the money is clean. People don't have an absolute right of privacy - the laws can and do restrict that.
baddox 13y ago
It's both. There is such a thing as synonyms.
algorias 13y ago
It may be, depending on your definition, but the term "money laundering" has a distinctly criminal connotation. Bitcoin mixing is more analogous to paying for something with cash withdrawn from a bank account rather than making a bank transfer directly.
- consonants 13y ago
  Money laundering is the process of concealing sources of money. If the IRS found out Western Union was trying to cover it's tracks of who sent/received money they would be investigated immediately. Laundering implies you have something to hide, most likely tax dollars or ill-received profits.
  - bobwaycott 13y ago
    Money laundering is the process of concealing illegal sources of money.
    - consonants 13y ago
      Money laundering is the process of concealing sources of money. Period. The act of purposefully laundering legitimate income is criminal.
fexl 13y ago
The term "money laundering" originally referred to the practice of concealing the movement of funds involved in a crime. Now they've redefined it so that concealing the movement of funds is itself a crime, even if the funds are entirely legitimate and no other crime is involved.
- consonants 13y ago
  Yes, because the motivations behind money laundering are driven almost exclusively by crime. For purchases you wish to remain private, such as personally embarrassing products, there are 'anonymizing' but traceable services for you to save face with. There are very few legitimate reasons to be concealing where you money came from or is going from the IRS, and they well aware of the intent behind the actions.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    The problem isn't the IRS, it is everybody else who wants to know. Especially in the case of bitcoin where all transactions are public record. Come up with a way for the IRS to investigate (not just get it handed to them on a platter, but something that mathematically requires a level of effort to prevent fishing expeditions by IRS employees) while simultaneously keeping all transactions private from everyone else and then we'll have a solution.
  - fexl 13y ago
    I make sure Uncle Soprano gets his cut.
    - consonants 13y ago
      Then I see no problems in your future! Here's to prudence.
  - nazgulnarsil 13y ago
    >There are very few legitimate reasons to be concealing where you money came from or is going from the IRS, and they well aware of the intent behind the actions Nice circular reasoning. Because everything that the IRS would disapprove of is illegitimate? When did the IRS get ultimate moral authority?

> A lot of work is currently going into trustless mixing/anonymising Call it what it is, money laundering.

VMG 13y ago

It isn't.

hbags 13y ago
A mixer's sole purpose in life is collect a fee for concealing sources of money. It's textbook money laundering.
- VMG 13y ago
  Except with Bitcoin, there are valid reasons to conceal the source and destination of money from the public besides criminal activity. The money being "laundered" isn't necessarily "dirty" to begin with. The same logic applies to encryption. People have a right to privacy.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    It doesn't matter what the reasons are, or whether you have a right to it, if you're trying to conceal where money came from, it's money laundering.
    - bobwaycott 13y ago
      Only if that money is the proceeds of a crime and you're attempting to conceal the source of the illegal funds. The flippant and universalizing way several of the commenters here are referring to money laundering as "concealing where the money came from" cast far too wide a net. The definition you're using here would include concealing where $500 came from that was donated by anonymous friends to give to another friend in need. Suddenly, by your metric, if any of the friends suspected of donating the cash to help someone don't fess up to the source of the cash, they're laundering money. Yeah, that's ridiculous. But it fits your description. Money laundering requires the currency be earnings from criminal activity.
      - PeterisP 13y ago
        If you're running a coin mixing service that makes the coins anonymous to others then as soon as a single transaction is true money laundering (from criminal activity), then you're liable for that. If a single Fed sting operation on silkroad buys drugs for some bitcoin that afterwards gets to your service - you're going down. Pretty much the only way to do so 'properly' would require you to make the coins anonymous to the public, but ID all of your customers and keep records on who actually gets which coins in the end.
        bobwaycott 13y ago
        Like the other commenter, you're speaking to a different angle. I was commenting strictly on the repeated blanket statements made throughout these comments that any concealing of the source of money == money laundering. I was not speaking to liability ramifications of running a coin mixing service at all. I wasn't even contending that there might not be legitimate claims made against bitcoin activity that could be money laundering. The act of concealing where money came from as a general principle is not itself money laundering. Yes, running a service that facilitates concealing the source of money can quickly become a target and risk liability for laundering activities. That is still, however, an entirely different point.
      - hbags 13y ago
        Put your money where your mouth is. Openly run a mixer. Openly advertise that you are the person who operates it. If you're right and I'm wrong, it'll be a lucrative business and you'll probably quickly dominate the mixer industry, as it'd be very easy for you to get press and build name recognition. You could do it as a very part-time job. If I'm right and you're wrong, you'll be in prison.
        bobwaycott 13y ago
        You're not responding to the point I wrote, or the parent comment to which I replied.
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    There can be (and are) regulations that may (in particular circumstances) make illegal to conceal the source and destination of money transfers even if the money is clean. People don't have an absolute right of privacy - the laws can and do restrict that.

baddox 13y ago

It's both. There is such a thing as synonyms.

algorias 13y ago

It may be, depending on your definition, but the term "money laundering" has a distinctly criminal connotation. Bitcoin mixing is more analogous to paying for something with cash withdrawn from a bank account rather than making a bank transfer directly.

consonants 13y ago
Money laundering is the process of concealing sources of money. If the IRS found out Western Union was trying to cover it's tracks of who sent/received money they would be investigated immediately. Laundering implies you have something to hide, most likely tax dollars or ill-received profits.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  Money laundering is the process of concealing illegal sources of money.
  - consonants 13y ago
    Money laundering is the process of concealing sources of money. Period. The act of purposefully laundering legitimate income is criminal.

fexl 13y ago

The term "money laundering" originally referred to the practice of concealing the movement of funds involved in a crime. Now they've redefined it so that concealing the movement of funds is itself a crime, even if the funds are entirely legitimate and no other crime is involved.

consonants 13y ago
Yes, because the motivations behind money laundering are driven almost exclusively by crime. For purchases you wish to remain private, such as personally embarrassing products, there are 'anonymizing' but traceable services for you to save face with. There are very few legitimate reasons to be concealing where you money came from or is going from the IRS, and they well aware of the intent behind the actions.
- Amadou 13y ago
  The problem isn't the IRS, it is everybody else who wants to know. Especially in the case of bitcoin where all transactions are public record. Come up with a way for the IRS to investigate (not just get it handed to them on a platter, but something that mathematically requires a level of effort to prevent fishing expeditions by IRS employees) while simultaneously keeping all transactions private from everyone else and then we'll have a solution.
- fexl 13y ago
  I make sure Uncle Soprano gets his cut.
  - consonants 13y ago
    Then I see no problems in your future! Here's to prudence.
- nazgulnarsil 13y ago
  >There are very few legitimate reasons to be concealing where you money came from or is going from the IRS, and they well aware of the intent behind the actions Nice circular reasoning. Because everything that the IRS would disapprove of is illegitimate? When did the IRS get ultimate moral authority?