Topic: Is "money laundering" really that big of a deal? - page 3. (Read 5176 times)
This whole tainting argument is beyond absurd.
If a system were ever implemented that allowed exchanges/businesses to refuse to accept coins because at some point in the past they were tainted I would never again accept btc for payment. I would sell all that I have that are not tainted and never use Bitcoin again. I seriously doubt I'm alone in that regard. Could you imagine the Dollar surviving if you could have your money confiscated because some kid bought a bag of pot five years ago with the money in your pocket!
how about this one?
i intentionally send 1 Satoshi's worth of tainted coin to EVERY single address in existence on the blockchain.
Most people don't understand 'taint'. Or 'tarnish' which was probably invented to help understand, but made things worse. It is perfectly possible to compute the percentage of a transaction which had a 'bad' history. So, your idea to ruin everything would only have the effect of ruining everything by a tiny fraction. And you your $1 might be worth $.95 due to the 5 year old pot purchase. Better than $0 though, right? And we solve a lot of crime after all.
And also it would be difficult to make an algorithm which was able to characterize 'bad'. For this we need a trusted body consisting at least partially of humans (until great strides are made in AI) to decide how bad is bad. These people will need compensation as will the infrastructure they operate to perform the calculations and communicate with the rest of the network.
Don't feel bad. Someone in the audience insisted on making an ass out of himself by not getting it (twice!) in the QA session.
---
Speaking of the Q&A, another interesting thing about that session was the suggestion about sending private keys around. When the round-table figured out what he was saying, they pretty much all turned a few shades more pale.
This tells me that the analysis which is being performed is probably not yet sophisticated enough to overcome that extra degree of freedom.
It is said to be a 'bad idea'. It actually works fine. I've done it. It seems like a bad idea for the recipient unless he knows what he's doing. I don't see any real dis-advantages for the person giving up the funds. I mean, they are assumed to be a total loss by the nature of the transaction.
...this just made me think of a new alt coin CleanCoin™.
I'm anticipating a pretty good chance that we'll not need an alt coin for that since that may be the trajectory of Bitcoin proper.
One of the more interesting observations from the 2013 conference came from the security discussion. With the exception of Ranier, there seemed to most like a no-brainer to employ tarnish/taint. I anticipate it happening shortly after mining and SPV servers can be centralized enough to apply pressure at the network level.
The (likely correct) idea seemed to be that a relatively few entities honoring a taint framework would be sufficient to implement it because even those who dis-agreed and would otherwise take BTC at face value would have to worry about getting shafted going forward. It would be interesting to know if any modeling has been attempted on this.
It was also interesting that ~vess gave a pretty clear warning about using mixing services. The implication seemed to be that if/when taint is introduced, there will be no grandfathering. A lot of people might be in for a rude awakening. All my coins came from Tradehill-I, but I heard rumors that some ~allinvain coins had been deposited with them prior to some of my purchases. So I might be looking at taking it up the ass for something I had no control over or knowledge about. (For those who are interested, several people took Tradehill coins straight to Mt. Gox and Mark immediately locked them based on his own taint analysis system I guess.)
It also strikes me that a taint system would be an outstanding method of encouraging users to pay fees where appropriate. The tainting body itself is going to be needing some funding to do their job (e.g., gumshoe work in identifying legitimate thefts and what-not.) And, of course, the Bitcoin Foundation probably deserves some cut of the economic activity for their services in shaping the solution's trajectory.
i agree with Alan Reiner's trepidation at tainting coins.
all sorts of problems can arise from trying to implement a tainting system namely b/c of temporal factors.
by the time any governing tainting body gets around to tainting criminal coins, they will most likely have passed through several pure addresses and whoever gets stuck unwittingly holding the tainted coins would be screwed.
not to mention if i wanted to sabotage a competitor or someone i didn't like by sending him/her tainted coins to their donation address.
If a system were ever implemented that allowed exchanges/businesses to refuse to accept coins because at some point in the past they were tainted I would never again accept btc for payment. I would sell all that I have that are not tainted and never use Bitcoin again. I seriously doubt I'm alone in that regard. Could you imagine the Dollar surviving if you could have your money confiscated because some kid bought a bag of pot five years ago with the money in your pocket!
how about this one?
i intentionally send 1 Satoshi's worth of tainted coin to EVERY single address in existence on the blockchain.
Right, are they going to ban every transaction. The whole idea is ridiculous!
Entertaining taint is unworkable, uneconomic and ultimately will lead to the demise of any monetary unit. Veseness is demonstrating his ignorance in monetary sciences to go spouting how great taint would be for bitcoin, it would be awful.
This has nothing to do with criminality or morality, it is a purely technical issue that when you study it hard enough leads to only one logical conclusion. Money must be fungible or else it is not money, it is something else.
This has nothing to do with criminality or morality, it is a purely technical issue that when you study it hard enough leads to only one logical conclusion. Money must be fungible or else it is not money, it is something else.
my impression of Vessenes from the conference is that he is a bumbling, giddy fool who can't stop talking and is in a rush to always speak first.
not to mention constantly interrupting others with stupid jokes.
Entertaining taint is unworkable, uneconomic and ultimately will lead to the demise of any monetary unit. Veseness is demonstrating his ignorance in monetary sciences to go spouting how great taint would be for bitcoin, it would be awful.
This has nothing to do with criminality or morality, it is a purely technical issue that when you study it hard enough leads to only one logical conclusion. Money must be fungible or else it is not money, it is something else.
This has nothing to do with criminality or morality, it is a purely technical issue that when you study it hard enough leads to only one logical conclusion. Money must be fungible or else it is not money, it is something else.
...this just made me think of a new alt coin CleanCoin™.
I'm anticipating a pretty good chance that we'll not need an alt coin for that since that may be the trajectory of Bitcoin proper.
One of the more interesting observations from the 2013 conference came from the security discussion. With the exception of Ranier, there seemed to most like a no-brainer to employ tarnish/taint. I anticipate it happening shortly after mining and SPV servers can be centralized enough to apply pressure at the network level.
The (likely correct) idea seemed to be that a relatively few entities honoring a taint framework would be sufficient to implement it because even those who dis-agreed and would otherwise take BTC at face value would have to worry about getting shafted going forward. It would be interesting to know if any modeling has been attempted on this.
It was also interesting that ~vess gave a pretty clear warning about using mixing services. The implication seemed to be that if/when taint is introduced, there will be no grandfathering. A lot of people might be in for a rude awakening. All my coins came from Tradehill-I, but I heard rumors that some ~allinvain coins had been deposited with them prior to some of my purchases. So I might be looking at taking it up the ass for something I had no control over or knowledge about. (For those who are interested, several people took Tradehill coins straight to Mt. Gox and Mark immediately locked them based on his own taint analysis system I guess.)
It also strikes me that a taint system would be an outstanding method of encouraging users to pay fees where appropriate. The tainting body itself is going to be needing some funding to do their job (e.g., gumshoe work in identifying legitimate thefts and what-not.) And, of course, the Bitcoin Foundation probably deserves some cut of the economic activity for their services in shaping the solution's trajectory.
i agree with Alan Reiner's trepidation at tainting coins.
all sorts of problems can arise from trying to implement a tainting system namely b/c of temporal factors.
by the time any governing tainting body gets around to tainting criminal coins, they will most likely have passed through several pure addresses and whoever gets stuck unwittingly holding the tainted coins would be screwed.
not to mention if i wanted to sabotage a competitor or someone i didn't like by sending him/her tainted coins to their donation address.
If a system were ever implemented that allowed exchanges/businesses to refuse to accept coins because at some point in the past they were tainted I would never again accept btc for payment. I would sell all that I have that are not tainted and never use Bitcoin again. I seriously doubt I'm alone in that regard. Could you imagine the Dollar surviving if you could have your money confiscated because some kid bought a bag of pot five years ago with the money in your pocket!
how about this one?
i intentionally send 1 Satoshi's worth of tainted coin to EVERY single address in existence on the blockchain.
...this just made me think of a new alt coin CleanCoin™.
I'm anticipating a pretty good chance that we'll not need an alt coin for that since that may be the trajectory of Bitcoin proper.
One of the more interesting observations from the 2013 conference came from the security discussion. With the exception of Ranier, there seemed to most like a no-brainer to employ tarnish/taint. I anticipate it happening shortly after mining and SPV servers can be centralized enough to apply pressure at the network level.
The (likely correct) idea seemed to be that a relatively few entities honoring a taint framework would be sufficient to implement it because even those who dis-agreed and would otherwise take BTC at face value would have to worry about getting shafted going forward. It would be interesting to know if any modeling has been attempted on this.
It was also interesting that ~vess gave a pretty clear warning about using mixing services. The implication seemed to be that if/when taint is introduced, there will be no grandfathering. A lot of people might be in for a rude awakening. All my coins came from Tradehill-I, but I heard rumors that some ~allinvain coins had been deposited with them prior to some of my purchases. So I might be looking at taking it up the ass for something I had no control over or knowledge about. (For those who are interested, several people took Tradehill coins straight to Mt. Gox and Mark immediately locked them based on his own taint analysis system I guess.)
It also strikes me that a taint system would be an outstanding method of encouraging users to pay fees where appropriate. The tainting body itself is going to be needing some funding to do their job (e.g., gumshoe work in identifying legitimate thefts and what-not.) And, of course, the Bitcoin Foundation probably deserves some cut of the economic activity for their services in shaping the solution's trajectory.
i agree with Alan Reiner's trepidation at tainting coins.
all sorts of problems can arise from trying to implement a tainting system namely b/c of temporal factors.
by the time any governing tainting body gets around to tainting criminal coins, they will most likely have passed through several pure addresses and whoever gets stuck unwittingly holding the tainted coins would be screwed.
not to mention if i wanted to sabotage a competitor or someone i didn't like by sending him/her tainted coins to their donation address.
If a system were ever implemented that allowed exchanges/businesses to refuse to accept coins because at some point in the past they were tainted I would never again accept btc for payment. I would sell all that I have that are not tainted and never use Bitcoin again. I seriously doubt I'm alone in that regard. Could you imagine the Dollar surviving if you could have your money confiscated because some kid bought a bag of pot five years ago with the money in your pocket!
...this just made me think of a new alt coin CleanCoin™.
I'm anticipating a pretty good chance that we'll not need an alt coin for that since that may be the trajectory of Bitcoin proper.
One of the more interesting observations from the 2013 conference came from the security discussion. With the exception of Ranier, there seemed to most like a no-brainer to employ tarnish/taint. I anticipate it happening shortly after mining and SPV servers can be centralized enough to apply pressure at the network level.
The (likely correct) idea seemed to be that a relatively few entities honoring a taint framework would be sufficient to implement it because even those who dis-agreed and would otherwise take BTC at face value would have to worry about getting shafted going forward. It would be interesting to know if any modeling has been attempted on this.
It was also interesting that ~vess gave a pretty clear warning about using mixing services. The implication seemed to be that if/when taint is introduced, there will be no grandfathering. A lot of people might be in for a rude awakening. All my coins came from Tradehill-I, but I heard rumors that some ~allinvain coins had been deposited with them prior to some of my purchases. So I might be looking at taking it up the ass for something I had no control over or knowledge about. (For those who are interested, several people took Tradehill coins straight to Mt. Gox and Mark immediately locked them based on his own taint analysis system I guess.)
It also strikes me that a taint system would be an outstanding method of encouraging users to pay fees where appropriate. The tainting body itself is going to be needing some funding to do their job (e.g., gumshoe work in identifying legitimate thefts and what-not.) And, of course, the Bitcoin Foundation probably deserves some cut of the economic activity for their services in shaping the solution's trajectory.
i agree with Alan Reiner's trepidation at tainting coins.
all sorts of problems can arise from trying to implement a tainting system namely b/c of temporal factors.
by the time any governing tainting body gets around to tainting criminal coins, they will most likely have passed through several pure addresses and whoever gets stuck unwittingly holding the tainted coins would be screwed.
not to mention if i wanted to sabotage a competitor or someone i didn't like by sending him/her tainted coins to their donation address.
...this just made me think of a new alt coin CleanCoin™.
I'm anticipating a pretty good chance that we'll not need an alt coin for that since that may be the trajectory of Bitcoin proper.
One of the more interesting observations from the 2013 conference came from the security discussion. With the exception of Ranier, there seemed to most like a no-brainer to employ tarnish/taint. I anticipate it happening shortly after mining and SPV servers can be centralized enough to apply pressure at the network level.
The (likely correct) idea seemed to be that a relatively few entities honoring a taint framework would be sufficient to implement it because even those who dis-agreed and would otherwise take BTC at face value would have to worry about getting shafted going forward. It would be interesting to know if any modeling has been attempted on this.
It was also interesting that ~vess gave a pretty clear warning about using mixing services. The implication seemed to be that if/when taint is introduced, there will be no grandfathering. A lot of people might be in for a rude awakening. All my coins came from Tradehill-I, but I heard rumors that some ~allinvain coins had been deposited with them prior to some of my purchases. So I might be looking at taking it up the ass for something I had no control over or knowledge about. (For those who are interested, several people took Tradehill coins straight to Mt. Gox and Mark immediately locked them based on his own taint analysis system I guess.)
It also strikes me that a taint system would be an outstanding method of encouraging users to pay fees where appropriate. The tainting body itself is going to be needing some funding to do their job (e.g., gumshoe work in identifying legitimate thefts and what-not.) And, of course, the Bitcoin Foundation probably deserves some cut of the economic activity for their services in shaping the solution's trajectory.
There are all of these rules and laws about "money laundering" to make it sound so scary and evil like Scarface moving his dirty money.
But what is money laundering anyway? Someone commits a crime involving money and does not want that money traced back to them for that crime, so they launder the money.
So essentially, these are monetary crimes. And since the law enforcement cannot solve the crime or catch the "bad guys" they have to lock down the whole monetary system just in case "bad" money makes it through.
So because some people may use money for bad things and they are too incompetent to catch them, the government must know every transaction that anyone ever makes with money?
Why stop there? Why not have ID checks at every corner of every city of every country so that if a crime happens on one street they can trace the crime by knowing who was on that street at that time? Oh, but those of us who would be against that would be "supporting terrorists" or drug dealers and criminals.
Sure, if someone steals money from someone else it would be nice to track that money down. But is it worth locking down a whole currency because of it?
But what is money laundering anyway? Someone commits a crime involving money and does not want that money traced back to them for that crime, so they launder the money.
So essentially, these are monetary crimes. And since the law enforcement cannot solve the crime or catch the "bad guys" they have to lock down the whole monetary system just in case "bad" money makes it through.
So because some people may use money for bad things and they are too incompetent to catch them, the government must know every transaction that anyone ever makes with money?
Why stop there? Why not have ID checks at every corner of every city of every country so that if a crime happens on one street they can trace the crime by knowing who was on that street at that time? Oh, but those of us who would be against that would be "supporting terrorists" or drug dealers and criminals.
Sure, if someone steals money from someone else it would be nice to track that money down. But is it worth locking down a whole currency because of it?
My thoughts exactly.
actually it's a big fucking joke, if you send someone 5000+/10000+ it comes into money laundering but when those rich assholes send millions into their swiss bank accounts no one says a shit.
the answer changes periodically depending on the agent that visits you..
Quote
money is not your property.. you are just an entitled bearer(holder) of it. do something illegal, and you will lose your entitlements.
... good thing then bitcoin is not lawful money.
Can someone give an example of illicit money?
When a person comes to a bank and deposite 1 million dollar, how could bank tell this 1 million dollar is robbed from a bank (thus become money laundering)or collected by a ASIC mining rig company from pre-orders?
I just have only one reasonable assumption: Through AML rule, banks can trace all the money flow up to the root (bank's loan) so that they know exactly who has how much money. I have seen some analysts from banks analyzed bitcoin transactions and it seems they are very professional in analyzing the trace of money flow in a transaction network
When a person comes to a bank and deposite 1 million dollar, how could bank tell this 1 million dollar is robbed from a bank (thus become money laundering)or collected by a ASIC mining rig company from pre-orders?
I just have only one reasonable assumption: Through AML rule, banks can trace all the money flow up to the root (bank's loan) so that they know exactly who has how much money. I have seen some analysts from banks analyzed bitcoin transactions and it seems they are very professional in analyzing the trace of money flow in a transaction network
assuming that you meant 1 million cash.
The bank doesn't care where the money came from. The bank is required to report the deposit to the proper authorities and then the IRS will come knocking. they will require you to show detailed records as to where, why, and how you acquired that much cash. If they believe you, you pay your taxes and the money is clean.
Is this true? I periodically receive large sum of transfer from my customer and IRS (or its swedish equavalent) has never knocked my door (I suppose they know already from the banking system where those money are coming from?)
The more I look into this the more I believe those old mans words: The world is in the hand of a couple of bankers
In the US banks were required to report every transaction of $10,000 or more. or, suspiscous numbers of transactions below that number. It is my understanding that it is now deposits of $5,000 or more.
Can someone give an example of illicit money?
When a person comes to a bank and deposite 1 million dollar, how could bank tell this 1 million dollar is robbed from a bank (thus become money laundering)or collected by a ASIC mining rig company from pre-orders?
I just have only one reasonable assumption: Through AML rule, banks can trace all the money flow up to the root (bank's loan) so that they know exactly who has how much money. I have seen some analysts from banks analyzed bitcoin transactions and it seems they are very professional in analyzing the trace of money flow in a transaction network
When a person comes to a bank and deposite 1 million dollar, how could bank tell this 1 million dollar is robbed from a bank (thus become money laundering)or collected by a ASIC mining rig company from pre-orders?
I just have only one reasonable assumption: Through AML rule, banks can trace all the money flow up to the root (bank's loan) so that they know exactly who has how much money. I have seen some analysts from banks analyzed bitcoin transactions and it seems they are very professional in analyzing the trace of money flow in a transaction network
assuming that you meant 1 million cash.
The bank doesn't care where the money came from. The bank is required to report the deposit to the proper authorities and then the IRS will come knocking. they will require you to show detailed records as to where, why, and how you acquired that much cash. If they believe you, you pay your taxes and the money is clean.
Is this true? I periodically receive large sum of transfer from my customer and IRS (or its swedish equavalent) has never knocked my door (I suppose they know already from the banking system where those money are coming from?)
The more I look into this the more I believe those old mans words: The world is in the hand of a couple of bankers
Firstly, I have to agree completely with the OP. This AML business is just lazy policing because they can't actually enforce the original laws. Many of these likely wouldn't even be laws in a free society, such as drug trafficking.
The other part I love about the reasons given for AML is that they are needed to prevent use of the money by "terrorists, drug dealers, and child pornographers". Some of these are really the modern boogeymen, aren't they? These frequently seem to be the three groups that are mentioned.
How large is the market for child pornorgraphy? Or how much money do terrorists really need to move around the world in a year? Obviously I am not endorsing these activities in any way, but I can't imagine the market for them is anything compared to the total amount of money being move around for drug markets.
It is absurd, we clog up whole financial markets on the slight chance that such laws will make the original activities slightly more inconvenient to the criminals.
The other part I love about the reasons given for AML is that they are needed to prevent use of the money by "terrorists, drug dealers, and child pornographers". Some of these are really the modern boogeymen, aren't they? These frequently seem to be the three groups that are mentioned.
How large is the market for child pornorgraphy? Or how much money do terrorists really need to move around the world in a year? Obviously I am not endorsing these activities in any way, but I can't imagine the market for them is anything compared to the total amount of money being move around for drug markets.
It is absurd, we clog up whole financial markets on the slight chance that such laws will make the original activities slightly more inconvenient to the criminals.
The reason that money laundering is illegal is ... Drumroll plz ... because of money (and politics, but that goes hand I'm hand). It's just easier for them to them to keep make laws that the "big organizations" have to follow to keep track of currency movement than to try to get them on the actual crime. Al Capone got taken down on tax evasion. It's just easier for them to pass these type of laws and it costs them less money. Also, these serve as good whipping boys for failing police and justice systems.
Can someone give an example of illicit money?
When a person comes to a bank and deposite 1 million dollar, how could bank tell this 1 million dollar is robbed from a bank (thus become money laundering)or collected by a ASIC mining rig company from pre-orders?
I just have only one reasonable assumption: Through AML rule, banks can trace all the money flow up to the root (bank's loan) so that they know exactly who has how much money. I have seen some analysts from banks analyzed bitcoin transactions and it seems they are very professional in analyzing the trace of money flow in a transaction network
When a person comes to a bank and deposite 1 million dollar, how could bank tell this 1 million dollar is robbed from a bank (thus become money laundering)or collected by a ASIC mining rig company from pre-orders?
I just have only one reasonable assumption: Through AML rule, banks can trace all the money flow up to the root (bank's loan) so that they know exactly who has how much money. I have seen some analysts from banks analyzed bitcoin transactions and it seems they are very professional in analyzing the trace of money flow in a transaction network
assuming that you meant 1 million cash.
The bank doesn't care where the money came from. The bank is required to report the deposit to the proper authorities and then the IRS will come knocking. they will require you to show detailed records as to where, why, and how you acquired that much cash. If they believe you, you pay your taxes and the money is clean.
Can someone give an example of illicit money?
When a person comes to a bank and deposite 1 million dollar, how could bank tell this 1 million dollar is robbed from a bank (thus become money laundering)or collected by a ASIC mining rig company from pre-orders?
I just have only one reasonable assumption: Through AML rule, banks can trace all the money flow up to the root (bank's loan) so that they know exactly who has how much money. I have seen some analysts from banks analyzed bitcoin transactions and it seems they are very professional in analyzing the trace of money flow in a transaction network
When a person comes to a bank and deposite 1 million dollar, how could bank tell this 1 million dollar is robbed from a bank (thus become money laundering)or collected by a ASIC mining rig company from pre-orders?
I just have only one reasonable assumption: Through AML rule, banks can trace all the money flow up to the root (bank's loan) so that they know exactly who has how much money. I have seen some analysts from banks analyzed bitcoin transactions and it seems they are very professional in analyzing the trace of money flow in a transaction network
Money Laundering is a false crime, like loitering, disturbing the peace, and resisting arrest. It exists so they can arrest you if they have nothing else.
Jump to: