131–140 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Money laundering is not unethical. It wasn't even illegal in the US until 1986. At the time the law was passed we were promised it would only be used against organized crime that couldn't be stopped any other way.
How exactly is money laundering not unethical? What's so ethical about assisting someone in getting away with a crime?
I would strongly consider not running a money transmitter as a side business. If you do not understand that you are running a money transmitter, I will be happy to elaborate. I would also mention, on the assumption you're not aware of it, that you are offering fairly effective money laundering for credit card thieves at below-market rates for that service, and you can expect heavy dedicated adversarial interest. I ra…
How a bitcoin which is anonymous can be laundering? A bitcoin in my understanding is black by default, it is like cash. If i was that guy i'd be happy (of course taking some protective measures as working through tor and having hosting in a 3rd world, but this is something i suggest everyone who does any e-business).
stolen credit card or cash > starbucks gift cards > mhluongo's service > bitcoins > back to cash
so useful for laundering, and easily converting your stolen credit cards into cash before starbucks receives the chargebacks.
I would recommend speaking with an accountant or financial adviser before the lawyer first - you'll still need the lawyer, but if it's really blowing up, you'll need some advice regarding taxable status of all this newfound digital income. Congratulations on your success, no matter what direction you decide to go with it!
I think he'll need more help regarding the legality of running a non-licensed money transmitter which is ideally suited for money laundering credit from stolen identities...
I would strongly consider not running a money transmitter as a side business. If you do not understand that you are running a money transmitter, I will be happy to elaborate. I would also mention, on the assumption you're not aware of it, that you are offering fairly effective money laundering for credit card thieves at below-market rates for that service, and you can expect heavy dedicated adversarial interest. I ra…
Our OP has acquired BTC through thrift and hard CPU pounding. And has a desire to drink much caffeine. So he realises that he can pour dollars held in starbucks cards out of person A's card and onto (his starbucks card?/his bank account? Not sure how that works as not got a starbucks card)
Anyway, he thinks he is onto a good deal, getting a latte at 30% off. However 10,000 dollars worth of latte requests later, and our OP smells a rat? Someone has bought starbucks gift cards with stolen CC details and then found a BTC owner willing to swap those gift cards for nice anonymous BTC.
I think that starbucks here is at least one money transmitter - they are taking payment at the NY branch, and guaranteeing the funds to our OP when he gets the card number.
However, there are a number of betwix and between issues - how do you buy a starbucks card with a stolen CC number? Is this a walk round the stores process? I would assume no-one saw his site and then went shopping, which implies that quite a large amount of starbuck's float will come from stolen CC - can anyone verify that?
But this one looks like everyone is in breach of some law some where. Starbucks, the OP, the credit card thieves. Unless Starbucks has a license as a money transmitter (transfer service for us in the UK)
There is a nice idea here - if you can automate throwing 5 bucks from one Starbucks gift card to another, you can invite someone to have a virtual coffee. How did you do that?
edit:
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the U.S. Treasury Department requires MSBs to register.[9] It is also a felony to engage in money transmission without a license in any state that requires a license to operate.[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_transmitter
I would give those guys a call - but probably after calling your own lawyer. IANAL, but this is a sticky situation, and probably unique to date. Hope all goes well.
I expect intention will count for a lot here.
Edit: according to random site on inter web (http://qz.com/166193/why-a-start-up-coffee-company-is-now-ac...) Starbucks cards can only transfer balance to another Starbucks card, and be redeemed at Starbucks for goods. So I think they still need to be considered a money transmitter. Anyway the upshot is that about 4bn is put on these cards yearly and 650m was left as cash on the cards at end of last year. Which is nice for Starbucks.
And I think the "have a coffee on me" idea is quite workable - I could happily sip a latte and join a webinar if you paid for the latte. maybe not - sounds a bit cheap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this is so general that lots of business would fit. A bitcoin pool ambiguously, perhaps, transfers value too. Why are they so non-neutral about this, and does it help us that they are?
It's not about transferring value - it's about substituting currency-equivalent value. What's the substitution going on in a mining pool? (And don't say electricity for coin, electricity is not valued similarly to a currency. Similarly 'claim on mining output'.)
The currency equivalent value is securing the chain of BTC transactions and discovering new blocks, making the system work at all. New blocks have a currency equivalent value and doing transactions has a currency equivalent value too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly is money laundering not unethical? What's so ethical about assisting someone in getting away with a crime?
I think you need to explain why money laundering is unethical. Because there are plenty of laws passed by various governments that many people feel would be unethical to follow. To use an extreme example, was it unethical to hide jews from the Nazi's?
hiding Jews from the Nazis was to avoid them getting shipped off to death camps.
The question is thus do you think that taxes are unethical? I don't think so but a lot of bitcoin fans seem to think so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of businesses fit, but only ones with cash to take or political points to score will be targeted.
Politics and money has nothing to do with it. Patio11 only posted an excerpt of the rules. Most businesses which fit this excerpt are excluded by portions of the rules not posted here but which are contained in the link. For example, those exceptions are why retailers who sell gift cards are not treated as money transmitters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not entirely convinced that money laundering is unethical in its own right. Certainly, profiting from unethical activity is only once removed from unethical. That would make obfuscating the taint on unethical-once-removed funds an act that is unethical-twice-removed. Clearly, there has to be some point at which we can no longer care, because I'm not certain that (metaphorically) there is a coin circulating that h…
Ethically, there's a difference between profiting incidentally from criminal activity because a fraction of your customers happen to be criminals, and having a business model which is viable largely due to criminal activity.
There was an idea floated a while back about why 51% of the miners couldn't just disavow the Bitcoin that FBI seized from Silk Road users. The answer was that it would completely unravel the currency, and impose an ethical obligation on everyone to examine the source of coins before accepting a transaction.
Gold has no smell. If it did, it would all stink. Attaching ethical considerations to money itself places an additional transaction burden in commerce, such that even a tiny cost can grind everything to a halt, in much the way that a pinch of sand in your oil pan can destroy your engine.
Think about the ethical consequences of currency that is not completely ethically neutral, and compare with the consequences of one that is. In the one case, money laundering happens, and you cannot reasonably prevent it. In the other, black markets flourish as white markets fail, because currency can flow only between them in only one direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This conversation is officially over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Fuck off. So he used an extreme example, doesn't mean his point is invalid. Godwin's Law is not supposed to be used as an excuse to shut down uncomfortable conversations.
I would strongly consider not running a money transmitter as a side business. If you do not understand that you are running a money transmitter, I will be happy to elaborate. I would also mention, on the assumption you're not aware of it, that you are offering fairly effective money laundering for credit card thieves at below-market rates for that service, and you can expect heavy dedicated adversarial interest. I ra…
At that point, your ethics are no longer up for debate and the law is coming for you.