Corruption, laundering and anonymity using the U.S. Dollar is is like 1 million times prevalent than with Bitcoin.
What's funny are the banks & keystone cops are trying to crack down on Local Bitcoin traders and overlooking what's happening right in front of their faces with USD.
Topic: Dark wallets and Corruption - page 2. (Read 1492 times)
We're just giving them Swiss banks as they used to be (and strangely enough, just at the time when transparency loss of privacy and increased risk of confiscation just starts to somehow emerge in the financial world). 
Strange indeed; it's almost like there's a genuine demand for financial privacy and money that can't be easily confiscated.
Anarchy makes an assumption: People are basically good - so laws (or enforced surveillance) do very little to make the world a better place. In my opinion laws often amplify the "bad" because the people with less than good motives are able to acquire power more easily by becoming part of the system.
The argument about governments and organizations having transparency means that they can have it, and may be required to have it if they want to continue to get support, but transparency shouldn't be enforced. If I have the choice between giving my money to a charity that has transparency on the blockchain or one that doesn't, guess which one I will choose.
As governments and other large organizations loose power through decentralization they will need to become more transparent to get the support (votes/money) that they need, but there will always be hidden things, in government, and with individuals. Privacy allows individuals to have their own sovereignty.
I completely support marriage rights for every adult, but it made me a little sick when Brendan Eic was pressured by the public out of his position as CEO of Mozilla because of a donation he made. To bad he didn't use DarkWallet.
The argument about governments and organizations having transparency means that they can have it, and may be required to have it if they want to continue to get support, but transparency shouldn't be enforced. If I have the choice between giving my money to a charity that has transparency on the blockchain or one that doesn't, guess which one I will choose.
As governments and other large organizations loose power through decentralization they will need to become more transparent to get the support (votes/money) that they need, but there will always be hidden things, in government, and with individuals. Privacy allows individuals to have their own sovereignty.
I completely support marriage rights for every adult, but it made me a little sick when Brendan Eic was pressured by the public out of his position as CEO of Mozilla because of a donation he made. To bad he didn't use DarkWallet.
For instance, has zillions of coins and has millions of addresses so that nobody sees how rich he is. And of course held in a dark wallet that shuffles all the flood of his (big) money around so that nobody notices these addresses all belong to a single individual, funding his drugs/arms/dark traffic.
And what's wrong with that? For instance, has zillions of coins and has millions of addresses so that nobody sees how rich he is. And of course held in a dark wallet that shuffles all the flood of his (big) money around so that nobody notices these addresses all belong to a single individual, funding his drugs/arms/dark traffic.
And what's wrong with that?
Hi all,
I know this is a highly controversial subject, but I see more and more "buzz" around "dark wallets" and such. Even without them, it is already possible for a clever bitcoin user to gain a very high level of privacy, but they take it to the next level and bring it to the public. And yet, is this what we (the people down here) really want? Isn't this massively helping corruption and the financial elite, while giving us just a little comfort? (and an extra way of cheating at all levels) I understand that most people here value privacy very much, but I hope you understand that this is going to be "the privacy of the corrupt elite, while you little ants will still be somehow traceable by the NSA and such".
So the main issue/question is: how do we want this to be highly anonymous, yet crack down corruption at all levels?
Wouldn't be more simple ifcoin would be completely transparent (e.g. a public blockchain and each address can be publicly tracked back to an individual or organization)? I know, most of you fear that will discover that you did because everything is now being exposed to the public. I know this poses a problem for activists in countries where they are severely tracked and cracked down. So I somehow agree that "dark wallets" have an immediate (and targeted) use. But what about the future? Do we want a future where everything is dark? We know where that leads to and to whom it really benefits. Although I see the current benefit of dark wallets, I wouldn't want a future where they shape the global way of life.
Sorry if I have missed something (there is so much to read out there that I couldn't possibly read the whole internet - please lead me to the articles I missed) and please argue with courtesy.
And never forget the big picture of my post: corruption loves darkness and hates light. And please prove me wrong, or at least that there are ways to put the "big fishes" under the spotlight while maintaining real privacy for legitimate use by the general public.
For instance, has zillions of coins and has millions of addresses so that nobody sees how rich he is. And of course held in a dark wallet that shuffles all the flood of his (big) money around so that nobody notices these addresses all belong to a single individual, funding his drugs/arms/dark traffic.
Again I would like this to be a calm, constructive and objective debate, I'm a big bitcoin and tor advocate, but the latest "dark" buzzes really rang like warning bells in my ears.
In shorter other words "do we really want to make coins darker for everyone, or should we rather force everyone to use them in the light?"
I know this is a highly controversial subject, but I see more and more "buzz" around "dark wallets" and such. Even without them, it is already possible for a clever bitcoin user to gain a very high level of privacy, but they take it to the next level and bring it to the public. And yet, is this what we (the people down here) really want? Isn't this massively helping corruption and the financial elite, while giving us just a little comfort? (and an extra way of cheating at all levels) I understand that most people here value privacy very much, but I hope you understand that this is going to be "the privacy of the corrupt elite, while you little ants will still be somehow traceable by the NSA and such".
So the main issue/question is: how do we want this to be highly anonymous, yet crack down corruption at all levels?
Wouldn't be more simple if
Sorry if I have missed something (there is so much to read out there that I couldn't possibly read the whole internet - please lead me to the articles I missed) and please argue with courtesy.
And never forget the big picture of my post: corruption loves darkness and hates light. And please prove me wrong, or at least that there are ways to put the "big fishes" under the spotlight while maintaining real privacy for legitimate use by the general public.
For instance,
Again I would like this to be a calm, constructive and objective debate, I'm a big bitcoin and tor advocate, but the latest "dark" buzzes really rang like warning bells in my ears.
In shorter other words "do we really want to make coins darker for everyone, or should we rather force everyone to use them in the light?"
Jump to: