301–310 of 402 posts
I’m amazed by how short sighted most of the comments here are. When it comes to large financial operations, society has clearly chosen transparency over privacy. Cause guess what, tax evasion, money laundering, political fixing, terrorism financing are things that exist and really are hurtful to our economies. Stop fantasizing that the government cares about the shit you buy. This is not about you. And Bitcoin’s anon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Spain soon it will be impossible to pay more than 1k in cash. Current limit is around 3k iirc. I guess it's the same in most EU countries.
Not sure why someone downvoted that. In France it's limited to 1000€ currently. https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F10999
"The payment in cash between individuals (purchase of a car or a painting for example) is not limited. A writing is necessary beyond 1,500 € to prove the payments ."
In fact, even below it, where it mentions the 1000 euro limit for professional transactions:
"Note: this limit does not apply to people who have no other means of payment or no deposit account."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it not? A DAO with with the right setup would require international collaboration to extradite all the members and coerce them to unlock their holdings
Yes sure but most existing crypto players want to be able to drive their Lambo to a nice restaurant in San Francisco or London, not have to live in a cave in Belarus or Haiti as a fugitive from the civilised world.
Hmm the whole way bitcoin is set up is tailored to making this impossible. Anyone can write a wallet program and create a private key. Of course when converting to Fiat money they have a chance to ask for ID but I don't see this happening with bitcoin to bitcoin transactions unless the whole protocol is changed around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is done by the likes of HSBC, Standard Chartered and other big banks. And, as it happens, because of the records, it has been discovered and everyone involved is traceable. The system works.
So where are the consequences?
It’s all public knowledge and pretty easy to find.
I’m amazed by how short sighted most of the comments here are. When it comes to large financial operations, society has clearly chosen transparency over privacy. Cause guess what, tax evasion, money laundering, political fixing, terrorism financing are things that exist and really are hurtful to our economies. Stop fantasizing that the government cares about the shit you buy. This is not about you. And Bitcoin’s anon…
This is quite a speculative & ambitious comment..
>Stop fantasizing that the government cares about the shit you buy. This is not about you.
...wot. You assume this is why folks want privacy in their transactions?
>And Bitcoin’s anonymity is not a feature of blockchain and never has been.
Bitcoin is psuedonymous, & always will be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you can't see anything, basically. You can only see your own wallet and transactions, and (AFAIK) you can't even see who sent you funds.
So, then how does that technically work? How will integrity be verified/guaranteed? If it's just an application level shielding, as in a separation between user software that can't access the information but a layer/cluster of infrastructure software that can, then I'm not so sure if its nothing more than rather meaningless cosmetics. Do you by any change have some references as to how this would work? because I sinc…
In Zcash or Monero, everyone knows the public blockchain and their own private keys. If you make a transaction, it's broadcast to all nodes. There's no special privileged nodes that people give their keys or transaction plaintexts to. Transaction data doesn't contain the sender, receiver, or amount in a way that's clear to the public. The transaction is made so the receiver can decrypt enough to see that they're the receiver and see the amount. The transaction also contains exactly enough information so that the public can verify that the transaction didn't invent any money out of thin air and instead only sent as much as the sender could, whoever they were. (Zero-knowledge proofs can be made to prove pretty arbitrary results over data even to people missing certain inputs!)
> a company transferring crypto-assets for a customer would be obliged to include their name, address, date of birth and account number, and the name of the recipient guess what, Mr. Commissionaire? Bitcoin isn't a company and you don't need to ask companies to transfer crypto assets edit: this just shows how little power they have over the network, so they will tyrannise the middlemen instead
> Bitcoin isn't a company and you don't need to ask companies to transfer crypto assets You don't need to ask a company to commit a crime you're still going to get punished..... The vast majority of EU citizen are using some kind of exchange as an onramp and offramp. Those exchanges will do KYC and happily turn over any addresses they send/receive crypto too.
Then can then set a recurring payment for their account and you automatically receive the BTC in your address.
I say this is a good compromise that should make people a bit more satisfied. You didn't needed to send a face mug to the Exchange and on the other end the bank that holds your IBAN already KYCd you into oblivion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is done by the likes of HSBC, Standard Chartered and other big banks. And, as it happens, because of the records, it has been discovered and everyone involved is traceable. The system works.
>and everyone involved is traceable. The system works. The system does not work. Everyone involved have been discovered by `rouges` like Assange that system holds in jail for either made-up or largely irrelevant accusations, out of the scope of their opus, full soviet style. Everyone knows the king is naked and just comedians and activists at large (or in jail) has courage to say something about it, which is pretty m…
https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-n...