551–560 of 827 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this right here, is the crux of the argument
If they were getting a cut from whenever illegal activities were done.. maybe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you don't actually legally have the right to hide your financial transactions besides Maybe you don't, but that's what happens by default when using cash
If you're exchanging cash, you still theoretically have the legal obligation to declare it. Businesses accepting cash have the obligation of issuing a receipt, and you may have some obligations of keeping that receipt. Now, it's true that these things are hard to enforce, or even impossible for small enough sums. But people systematically flaunting the rules for large sums of money will get arrested, even with cash.
I'm pretty sure that's legally required even when buying with crypto
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is accomplished every day in every country in the western hemisphere by means of shell companies.
Current EU AML laws are full of requirements for explicit registration of the true beneficiaries for all these companies (including chains of companies); anonymous ownership of companies is becoming illegal in the last couple years.
https://www.loyensloeff.com/insights/news--events/news/bill-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's the same argument people make for banning guns in the US. To be fair, I think most are arguing to restrict guns rather than ban. I’m not saying you did this, but many people deliberately distort that into “they wanna take all your guns” in bad faith.
To be Fair, based on the History of " restrict guns " it is clear no amount of restrictions is enough to satisfy those that want to restrict guns, confiscation and total ban is the clear end goal it is NOT "bad faith" to say that, when there is clear evidence that no matter how many times compromise is reached they return the very next day asking for more and more restrictions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remind me why you need to launder your crypto to do that?
Because you don't want your crypto currency to be traced back to you... because then the VPN you paid for with it can be traced back to you... and sometimes the entire point of a VPN is so that connections cannot be traced back to you. The funds used to pay for the VPN were not acquired illicitly, but having it traced by to you _could_ be dangerous for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Banning maths is fascist What about banning chemistry and physics? If I fire a gun and the bullet hits someone I get arrested (and maybe even if it doesn't hit anyone if I am somewhere were shooting guns is not illegal), yet all I did was use some levers (physics) to add compress a spring adding potential energy to it (physics) which then got converted to kinetic energy (Hooke's law, more physics), which imparted e…
you fired the gun, not the manufacturer. why would they arrest the manufacturer/inventor/etc for something that was done by you?
That's true for consumer products and even more significant for things like guns.
In most places you're a not even allowed to manufacture guns not to speak of Marketing and selling them.
Offering a service like tornado cash (e.g. getting financial benefits from transaction fees) would be just as illegal if they used potatoes instead of cryptocurrency. There are laws dealing with money laundering specifically and "doing it on the Blockchain" doesn't circumvent them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wrong. For example courts have consistently ruled that you can’t be compelled to unlock your phone or decrypt your hard disk if you’re invoking the 5th
"courts have consistently ruled that you can't be compelled to unlock your phone ... if you're invoking the 5th." This is demonstrably false. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/08/nj-supreme-court...
At least in the US, providing tools that you know will be used to commit a crime is a crime Alfred Anaya Put Secret Compartments in Cars. So the DEA Put Him in Prison https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/
So why is it a crime to build a thing that has both legal and illegal applications, like knifes, guns, dollar bills, gold coins, ... ?
And don't get me started with "Most activity on tornado is illegal". It is a privacy service. So unless it is broken we don't know this. Are we going to take the word of the "Authorities" for this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> criminalizing its creation or possession is the worst possible action to take Sure. That’s not what’s happening. Tornado was used illegally. Its leadership kept developing it, kept getting paid, and made no apparent course corrections. This wasn’t simply a GitHub repo; it was a remunerated enterprise. When I’ve brought up the legal issues around mixers, a common response involves the impossibility of governments to…
Justifiable by what, exactly? International trade in a multipolar world requires a money supply that no single government can arbitrarily enforce its will on. Is the argument that every government should have an unchecked ability to enforce its will on the medium of exchange?