411–420 of 544 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't you use the traditional banking system, which doesn't result in publicly listed transactions? I struggle to find a legitimate use case for hiding transactions from your bank and thus tax authority (assuming a developed country).
> I struggle to find a legitimate use case for hiding transactions from your bank and thus tax authority (assuming a developed country). Roe v. Wade
Earlier quoted context omitted.
with open ledgers everyone can see your revenue. This isn't something businesses want to show competitors. Anything that can obscure your wallet (which gives away how much you own as well as shows income) can help obscure this data, which is extremely valuable to some types of businesses. I'm sure there are other examples, but this is a good one off the top of my head and I personally have used mixers for this very p…
Hadn't considered the fact that wallet balances are public, but it seems like a rather niche need as opposed to having the ability to launder funds and irrevocably transfer them. The latter I believe is very appealing to people who are transferring proceeds from criminal activities. Thanks for sharing though, I hadn't thought of wanting to hide one's wallet balance from other people as a need.
With that in mind, if in fact it's impossible to stop, it seems rather arbitrary to pick and choose which products get targeted and serves no real purpose to even slow down the undesired behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(B)(ii) does not require specific intent. It requires knowledge that the transaction fails to meet reporting requirements. The intent in question is manifested in Tornado Cash's design, which doesn't pass the malfeasance smell test: you can't absolve yourself of illegality by automating the illegality.
The intent in question is manifested in Tornado Cash's design, which doesn't pass the malfeasance smell test: you can't absolve yourself of illegality by automating the illegality. Given that it also has legitimate uses, I think that's a very difficult case to make. Also, with very limited exceptions, nearly all crimes in the US require intent and/or knowing participation. It's a fundamental tenet of our system. Ther…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Privacy exists even if the government violates it due to their tax schemes. A _right_ to privacy may even exist as a natural human right. If a country decides collectively that this is the case, then what ought to change is the tax policy, not every user service. We can argue over how easy it would be, but I would presume its possible for a government to switch over to taxing hard assets like land, machines, and ship…
> If a country decides collectively that this is the case, then what ought to change is the tax policy, Your post is largely meaningless because, while this line is inarguably true, this also hasn't happened and so AML and KYC are still a thing--and there's precious little to indicate that anyone really cares about it aside from starve-the-beast conservatives and cryptocurrency enthusiasts, and that's not a majority.…
Now with USA fiat money there is no financial need to have personal income tax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Odd that you would bring up a tool banned in a wave of media-provoked hysteria, one so useful to the disabled that the ban has been overturned, which was never in fact intended as a weapon, isn't a very good one, and just looks cool. Probably because banning knives is ludicrous behavior, so there aren't better examples. So you can see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchblade
You're right - the switchblade is an odd example. I've now learned a good bit about it from that link! But the core point is that societies will ban things that generate more harm than benefit, be it real or perceived. This is the crux of the gun debate in America right now.
So here's the context for TD AFAICT: crypto is a competitor to fiat currency and all the hegemony that comes with it. It is a power play, and power doesn't come for free, and often is ultimately paid for with blood. Governments aren't just going to let a new wild west open up on that without any say-so. I think crypto enthusiasts either don't understand the implications of the tech or reject them on philosophical grounds, which I sympathize with but understand that doesn't change the reality as far as every stakeholder is involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that "money-laundering" is only a thing you have committed if you are dealing in funds that are the proceeds of another crime. If you are not committing another crime, you are more than welcome to conceal the source and destination of your financial transactions. The chief selling point of Tornado Cash was addressing the significant privacy problems inherent in a currency based on a public ledger. The idea that…
Such tools are fine as long as they adhere to KYC regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The intent in question is manifested in Tornado Cash's design, which doesn't pass the malfeasance smell test: you can't absolve yourself of illegality by automating the illegality. Given that it also has legitimate uses, I think that's a very difficult case to make. Also, with very limited exceptions, nearly all crimes in the US require intent and/or knowing participation. It's a fundamental tenet of our system. Ther…
For someone who isn't in the know of this case, can you share some legitimate uses for Tornado Cash?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At which point did Rosa Parks transfer her money using an immutable public ledger? Comparing your financial scheme to Jim Crow isn't the most distasteful thing I've seen on HN, but it's up there!
> your financial scheme It's not my financial scheme, it's the social contract.
Comparing that to hiding your financial transactions so you avoid KYC is genuinely embarrassing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Money crimes should be prosecuted and solved at their start points and endpoints, not within the financial system. Failure to adhere to this standard is why we no longer really control the money in our bank accounts anymore That's easier said than done. It's drastically easier to catch crime by it's results (money) than in the act. Famously that's how Capone was caught. And what would be the advantage of that, to a…
And this is where it gets fun. Banks will absolutely not tell the customer that their transaction is flagged for one reason or another partly so that they do not lose their 'safe harbor' status under BSA. Any numbers you will see might be from the government, but FinCEN is relatively tight lipped about those for a variety of reasons. The discussion is taking place now, because it has become fairly onerous on an avera…
The teller is not allowed to disclose this to customer.
> Any numbers you will see might be from the government
In my experience, the board of directors of the bank get a monthly roll-up of the numbers.