Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

news.bitcoin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 199 posts

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#61

Post by chx »

Mendenhall wrote: post #9
ouid wrote: post #2

The value of bitcoin was always to evade taxes and launder money, both of which are criminal enterprises, the only thing that is changing is enforcement.

While I am sure those reasons play a part I think thats not even close to all of what makes it valuable. Ease of use is a huge one. I can set up a wallet in less than a minute and someone from across the world can send me bitcoin in the time it takes for it to clear the block, other cryptos even faster. One can post their wallet address and make jokes on social media and receive bitcoin just because people like the c…

What is missing from this picture is that whoever wants to send you bitcoins needs to get them. This is still a huge barrier especially with having no idea what your bitcoins are actually worth and also it's a given that your wallet will be stolen sooner or later so you want to buy only a little at a time but that has overhead so...

As for transferring money, Transferwise is leagues ahead in usability when you consider that the sender has some sort of currency and the receiver wants currency (and bitcoin is not a currency, no matter how hard these Ayn Rand types insist, not without a nation state backing it). All you need is a name and an account number and the UI is super friendly and the transfer is cheap.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#62

Post by barrkel »

Houshalter wrote: post #57
roguecoder wrote: post #32

If we want to draw the connection to cash, companies that trade in large amounts of cash are also subject to regulation and reporting. For example, U.S. financial institutions are required to file Currency Transaction Reports for deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency, or other payment or transfer that involves more than $10,000. Any organization that is facilitating those trades is subject to financial regulation…

You are right that they are treating it similarly to cash. The problem is that our society is slowly criminalizing cash as well. If cops catch you with a large amount of cash, they can just take it with no recourse. It's assumed to be for criminal activity, since why else would anyone transport cash? Using cash is increasingly seen as suspicious and possibly criminal behavior. If you deposit a large amount of cash it…

Before you run away with your paranoid hat on, think about it the other way around: voters want something done about organized crime, and politicians look for the easy wins. Since large untraceable cash transactions are almost always criminal in nature, it makes sense to lower the weight of evidence required to seize unusually large amounts of cash.

And frankly, I'm fairly comfortable with that. It'll never affect me, because I don't deal in large cash transactions, and I can't imagine any world in which I would. The largest would be buying a second-hand vehicle privately, but I wouldn't spend 10k on a private purchase - the mugging risk is too high.

Yes, poor saps do get caught up, especially if they're doing something like collecting money for charity - small numbers add up. They're ought to be easy ways of appealing the decision for legitimate reasons.

I don't really buy the slippery slope argument either. I think the limit will be quickly raised once it's obviously too low.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#63

Post by wfunction »

roguecoder wrote: post #32

If we want to draw the connection to cash, companies that trade in large amounts of cash are also subject to regulation and reporting. For example, U.S. financial institutions are required to file Currency Transaction Reports for deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency, or other payment or transfer that involves more than $10,000. Any organization that is facilitating those trades is subject to financial regulation…

Regarding how awesome Bitcoin must be, can I just take a moment to point out that only half the reason crap like randomware exists (and hits places like hospitals, etc.) is suboptimal security. The other half is untraceable digital payments. Food for thought.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#64

Post by mirimir »

ajmurmann wrote: post #56
mirimir wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last step doesn't work. I mean, you might as well declare the cash as income. You'd be pressed to explain where either came from. More useful would be to buy Bitcoin with cash, mix, and then invest assets somewhere anonymously. But it's a hard problem, because wherever assets appear in meatspace, there's typically the need to explain their origin. That's where many people get caught. Such as Tomáš Jiříkovský of S…

The problem actually seems worse on the Bitcoin side to new than in meat space. Someone might have a Saas business that receives a lot of payments in BTC. Interestingly there isn't all that much traffic. You know like in mani pedi salons that make surprising amounts of money despite never being really packed. It's harder to notice that with a Saas business especially if the logs aren't kept for long. However, it woul…

OK, so you just run your SaaS business as Nomen Nescio, using anonymously leased servers, managing them through VPNs and Tor, and so on. Then Bitcoin go somewhere.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#65

Post by rl3 »

barrkel wrote: post #62
Houshalter wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right that they are treating it similarly to cash. The problem is that our society is slowly criminalizing cash as well. If cops catch you with a large amount of cash, they can just take it with no recourse. It's assumed to be for criminal activity, since why else would anyone transport cash? Using cash is increasingly seen as suspicious and possibly criminal behavior. If you deposit a large amount of cash it…

Before you run away with your paranoid hat on, think about it the other way around: voters want something done about organized crime, and politicians look for the easy wins. Since large untraceable cash transactions are almost always criminal in nature, it makes sense to lower the weight of evidence required to seize unusually large amounts of cash. And frankly, I'm fairly comfortable with that. It'll never affect me…

Alternatively, the cops could do actual police work instead of robbing people of their cash at random.

>And frankly, I'm fairly comfortable with that. It'll never affect me, because ...

Statements such as those aren't sufficient justification for shredding freedoms that have existed for hundreds of years.

It's also worth noting that the seized cash usually benefits the organization seizing it, creating a perverse incentive in the process.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#66

Post by mirimir »

firethief wrote: post #60
joering2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is also important to say that the trend of making you most likely criminal "because you use cash" will continue. It is already known restaurants owners are getting in trouble for small deposits. Its not even $10,000 or $9,000 you deposit.. if you happen to make daily deposits of even few hundred dollars you are guilty of "structuring" aka smurfing. Another thing is to make sure you can track back your physical hoa…

He might have been better off laundering it.

Or keeping it as cash. Or buying gold informally.

I mean, why put it back into the system?

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#67

Post by kemonocode »

wfunction wrote: post #63
roguecoder wrote: post #32

If we want to draw the connection to cash, companies that trade in large amounts of cash are also subject to regulation and reporting. For example, U.S. financial institutions are required to file Currency Transaction Reports for deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency, or other payment or transfer that involves more than $10,000. Any organization that is facilitating those trades is subject to financial regulation…

Regarding how awesome Bitcoin must be, can I just take a moment to point out that only half the reason crap like randomware exists (and hits places like hospitals, etc.) is suboptimal security. The other half is untraceable digital payments. Food for thought.

Bitcoin payments are anonymous, but they are perfectly traceable. Quite the important distinction there.

Tainted money like that would need to be put through a Bitcoin tumbler which is unsafe and imperfect or only ever used to pay for other criminal activities as exchanging it for fiat in an exchange cooperating with any authorities could be pretty hard.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#68

Post by aaron_m04 »

giobox wrote: post #6
ouid wrote: post #2

The value of bitcoin was always to evade taxes and launder money, both of which are criminal enterprises, the only thing that is changing is enforcement.

I agree with this to some extent. As much as I consider myself a 'small l' libertarian, is a society in which taxes could be evaded so freely on such a large scale really desirable? We already struggle with this problem enough with 'traditional' financial tools. It's certainly worth thinking about.

Maybe this is a sign we should switch away from income tax to use, for example, a land value tax. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#69

Post by bgitarts »

dragonwriter wrote: post #13
Glyptodon wrote: post #11

I thought the IRS decided bitcoin was property, not currency?

The IRS determined that, under tax law , it was property. That has no bearing whatsoever on how money transmission business law treats it. Different laws often have different applicable definitions for similar terms.

For the purpose of money transmission business law, what is considered money and what is not?

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#70

Post by justicezyx »

ensiferum wrote: post #20

The banks and governenrs would never allow a currency that they can't control and tax and which doesn't benefit the rich.

I am not sure how btc, right now, is not driving buy the rich Chinese corrupted business man or government officials...
Post reply on HN