The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers • Hacker News Board

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#81

Post by legulere » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 5:53 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #44

abritinthebay wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. The problem is that Bitcoin wants to be taken seriously as a currency while at the same time not being subject to all the rules and regulations imposed on currencies. This was predicted years ago by most critics but was most often just hand-waved away by advocates, most responding that it was impossible to regulate the system itself. Well.. yeah, so you regulate assets and income of the people and companies i…

Some of us see P2P cryptocurrencies as a way to opt out of government regulation. Governments can't regulate entities that maintain strong anonymity. Most vulnerable are asset movements to and from meatspace. But there are well-known methods for dealing with that.

And governments have all reason to believe that when people try hiding money streams from them it is for something illegal like tax evasion, money laundering, etc.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like to live in a world with even more powerful criminal forces.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#82

Post by wfunction » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 5:59 AM UTC

abritinthebay wrote: post #80

wfunction wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bitcoin payments are anonymous, but they are perfectly traceable. Quite the important distinction there. And I was merely saying Bitcoin has been making untraceable digital payments possible (and practical/easy). Nowhere was I saying it is impossible to also use Bitcoin for traceable digital payments.

And you'd still be wrong. There's nothing about bitcoin that makes payments untraceable (quite the opposite). It takes longer, but it's possible.

"It takes longer, but it's possible"?

That's like saying decrypting RSA "takes longer, but it's possible". Yeah, good luck.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#83

Post by legulere » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 6:03 AM UTC

georgeecollins wrote: post #25

ouid wrote: post #2

The value of bitcoin was always to evade taxes and launder money, both of which are criminal enterprises, the only thing that is changing is enforcement.

There are all kinds of legal and legitimate reasons to pay for something in a way that isn't easily tracked. You can do it now with cash and it isn't illegal. Just because you want privacy does not mean you are a criminal.

But Bitcoin is just Pseudonymous, not anonymous and tracks all transactions publicly.

Regular banks offer better privacy.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#84

Post by legulere » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 6:09 AM UTC

afsina wrote: post #18

pmoriarty wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget rampant speculation and tulip mania. The author of the article speaks disparagingly of a "money grab" by the government, as if money grabbing wasn't what most bitcoin traders are after.

Government grabs money by force. That is the difference I guess.

I much prefer the government collecting a fair share of money to uphold public goods than criminals running away with all my money (happened to me with shares in a Chinese miner).

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#85

Post by oska » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 6:27 AM UTC

A little bit of background about this site (bitcoin.com). This site is owned by a very controversial figure in the bitcoin world (Roger Ver). Many people feel his use of the domain is unethical, as the URL looks like an official voice for bitcoin when it is far from it.

Satoshi Nakamoto (bitcoin's creator) registered the bitcoin.org site to present information on bitcoin, with the .org domain reflecting the open source, community engaged spirit of early bitcoin development. Roger Ver purchased bitcoin.com from a domain squatter and uses the site to frequently attack core developers of bitcoin and to hype altcoins. From the submission title this article doesn't appear to fall in either of those categories but I think it is still worth pointing out the dubious background of this site to anyone just becoming interested in bitcoin.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#86

Post by dwaltrip » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 6:40 AM UTC

oska wrote: post #85

A little bit of background about this site (bitcoin.com). This site is owned by a very controversial figure in the bitcoin world (Roger Ver). Many people feel his use of the domain is unethical, as the URL looks like an official voice for bitcoin when it is far from it. Satoshi Nakamoto (bitcoin's creator) registered the bitcoin.org site to present information on bitcoin, with the .org domain reflecting the open sour…

Roger Ver isn't an angel, but the core developers are far from deserving uncritical respect. They've failed for 3+ years to implement any of the dozens of proposed scaling improvements.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#87

Post by XorNot » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 7:05 AM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #62

Houshalter wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right that they are treating it similarly to cash. The problem is that our society is slowly criminalizing cash as well. If cops catch you with a large amount of cash, they can just take it with no recourse. It's assumed to be for criminal activity, since why else would anyone transport cash? Using cash is increasingly seen as suspicious and possibly criminal behavior. If you deposit a large amount of cash it…

Before you run away with your paranoid hat on, think about it the other way around: voters want something done about organized crime, and politicians look for the easy wins. Since large untraceable cash transactions are almost always criminal in nature, it makes sense to lower the weight of evidence required to seize unusually large amounts of cash. And frankly, I'm fairly comfortable with that. It'll never affect me…

Conflating cash seizures with reporting standards is silly - one is not the other and they stem from very different problems in the US.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#88

Post by RichardHeart » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 7:16 AM UTC

oska wrote: post #85

A little bit of background about this site (bitcoin.com). This site is owned by a very controversial figure in the bitcoin world (Roger Ver). Many people feel his use of the domain is unethical, as the URL looks like an official voice for bitcoin when it is far from it. Satoshi Nakamoto (bitcoin's creator) registered the bitcoin.org site to present information on bitcoin, with the .org domain reflecting the open sour…

I think using a domain name you paid dearly for, to promote a project you've got millions invested in, and many ancillary businesses in the space you also have millions invested in is entirely ethical. Do you think searchengine.com is unethical because google exists? I'm pretty sure Ver is a bitcoin maximalist as well.

Yeah, I don't think you've supported the "dubious" claim. Also his attempt to create lower fees through software "upgrades" may be flawed, but the intent seems honest to me.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#89

Post by RichardHeart » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 7:23 AM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #62

Houshalter wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right that they are treating it similarly to cash. The problem is that our society is slowly criminalizing cash as well. If cops catch you with a large amount of cash, they can just take it with no recourse. It's assumed to be for criminal activity, since why else would anyone transport cash? Using cash is increasingly seen as suspicious and possibly criminal behavior. If you deposit a large amount of cash it…

Before you run away with your paranoid hat on, think about it the other way around: voters want something done about organized crime, and politicians look for the easy wins. Since large untraceable cash transactions are almost always criminal in nature, it makes sense to lower the weight of evidence required to seize unusually large amounts of cash. And frankly, I'm fairly comfortable with that. It'll never affect me…

"I think the limit will be quickly raised." I can't think of a single instance of regulation where a limit has ever gone up with inflation, or for any other reason, ever. 10k limit across borders for, uh 30 years? It gets more harsh, not less.

EU: "Cash controls - New proposal On 21 December 2016 the Commission proposed to extend the already existing controls on amounts of cash entering or leaving the Union equal to or in excess of 10.000 euros.

The measures will extend cash controls to unaccompanied cash such as cash sent in postal parcels or freight consignments

and to precious commodities such as gold, which serve as 'quasi-cash' and are used to circumvent the obligation to declare.

The proposed changes will improve the exchange of information between competent authorities at national level and between Member States

and allow them to act on amounts lower than the declaration threshold, provided that there are indications of criminal activity."

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#90

Post by XorNot » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 7:25 AM UTC

joering2 wrote: post #35

Jabanga wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peer-to-peer electronic cash has numerous uses beyond tax evasion and money laundering, just as physical cash does. But to your point, even these laws are part of a new trend. Money laundering is a relatively new crime, and widespread taxation of private transactions only came into force in the early 20th century, with governments around the world instituting income taxation. 50 years ago, almost all transactions wer…

It is also important to say that the trend of making you most likely criminal "because you use cash" will continue. It is already known restaurants owners are getting in trouble for small deposits. Its not even $10,000 or $9,000 you deposit.. if you happen to make daily deposits of even few hundred dollars you are guilty of "structuring" aka smurfing. Another thing is to make sure you can track back your physical hoa…

I like the buried lead here - you jump from "inconvenienced restaurant owners" to over half a million dollars under floorboards. That's taking, conservatively, >$10000 a year of losses from cash rate interest alone just sitting there.