61–70 of 82 posts
Money Laundering is Financial Thoughtcrime: http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/money-laundering-is-... . . . By Former Chief Foreign Exchange Dealer; Director of Credit Card Interchange @ Visa & Founding Director of the Bitcoin Foundation . . .
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say morality and the legal system are entirely separate things and I made no argument about the latter. I merely am invoking the golden rule. Is it fair to hurt someone who has hurt no one?
Because your view is a naive reduction in an attempt to trivialize the issue by claiming nobody was specifically harmed when the matter at hand is the protection of society as a whole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they don't; but they should.
This is the distinction between a crime and something that is illegal. On HN people rarely make the distinction because they think something being illegal makes it a crime. Illegal means it violates a law. A crime is something that actually harms someone. Gay marriage may have been illegal, but it was never a crime, for example. Alas, these days the USA is a very authoritarian culture and the idea that there might be…
You're language is too loose to be making such distinctions. Crimes have a legal meaning so you can't just use the word crime in its moral sense only without being specific.
>On HN people rarely make the distinction because they think something being illegal makes it a crime.
HN isn't that dumb.
> Gay marriage may have been illegal, but it was never a crime, for example.
In the sense you're using the word crime (i.e. moral) you're absolutely wrong, it was a moral crime and gay people were the victims of said oppression.
Money Laundering is Financial Thoughtcrime: http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/money-laundering-is-... . . . By Former Chief Foreign Exchange Dealer; Director of Credit Card Interchange @ Visa & Founding Director of the Bitcoin Foundation . . .
It also falls under "victimless crime" definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the biggest Forex platforms is a Government-regulated FTSE 250 PLC with a known founder, Chairman, CEO and board of directors. One of the biggest Bitcoin exchanges is run by "Big Vern". Bitcoin in a nutshell.
You can't seriously be suggesting that Cryptsy is one of the big bitcoin exchanges? Never mind the fact it's an altcoin exchange, it been been suspected insolvent/scam since late 2014. It's like calling
Not since they 'lost' a mere 10,000 Bitcoins, no. Google "big bitcoin exchanges" though and you'll see they feature quite heavily.
>Never mind the fact it's an altcoin exchange
What is Cryptsy:
Cryptsy International is an Internet startup managed by Project Investors, Inc.
*focusing on the exchange of Crypto-Currency commonly known as “BitCoin”* and
it's derivatives.
https://cryptsy.com/pages/about
I'm not sure how this refutes my point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. You have to look at the intent of the business. LR's primary use was illicit, whether they explicitely advertised themselves as such or not, they were still out of regulation and obviously not innocent. Also it's customer, not costumer.
Strong accusations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please go back to Reddit.
if HN reader implies that Federal Reserve Banks are waging or somehow supposed to wage war on drugs, that is sad. i was just trying to point that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Identity theft and credit card fraud are victimless crimes?
Stealing CC is bad thing. But why punish LR for this and not IT professionals who stole them? Or Visa who still cannot make secure payment system? Or Microsoft who cannot make secure operating system?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Need to be licensed as an MSB is based on where your customers are located, not your business.
US Law does not apply to Costa Rica-- it's outside their jurisdiction. That's one of the fundamental problems here. The US could pass a law that Sainsburies (a UK grocery store, with no US locations) has to employ a jazz band at every one of their stores for 3 hours every friday afternoon... but it doesn't matter, because the US does not have jurisdiction over the UK. Even if a US citizen goes and visits and stops by…
As you've probably noticed, the US goes around the world and enforces its will all the time. Whether its via various asymmetrical treaties, direct military invasion or some other tactic, they usually at least move the needle towards the direction of their desire.
Which is not to say that the US is alone in these actions. There are lots of entities that enforce their will like this. Russia for example just recently went and took a nice chunk of land for itself in the form of Crimea. This was neither new nor surprising, especially for me as I was born in a Russian occupied territory.