[XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1877.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: MoneroMooo on June 04, 2015, 04:47:09 AM

Maybe this Poloniex name and country thing is a blessing in disguise, then. It may cause a significant enough amount of trading to go to Bittrex, thereby encouraging more people to trade there too, and we end up with two "large enough" exchanges, one of which is suitable for suit type people who would only trade on a regulated show-me-your-papers exchange (whatever their reasons might be).

Doesn't it seem likely that bittrex follows along this account verification path fairly soon?

MoneroMooo

legendary

Activity: 1276

Merit: 1001

Maybe this Poloniex name and country thing is a blessing in disguise, then. It may cause a significant enough amount of trading to go to Bittrex, thereby encouraging more people to trade there too, and we end up with two "large enough" exchanges, one of which is suitable for suit type people who would only trade on a regulated show-me-your-papers exchange (whatever their reasons might be).

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: DaveyJones on June 04, 2015, 03:52:28 AM

Quote from: macsga on June 04, 2015, 02:02:06 AM

Quote from: ArticMine on June 04, 2015, 12:20:22 AM

I do not see mixin values being the issue here. What the MSB is required to do here is 1) Tell the recipient from whom the funds are coming from 2) Keep a record of the transaction including the recipient and sender. Of course an exchange can simply say that a customer can only withdraw from or deposit to an address under the customer's control. The solution is simple withdraw to a wallet under one's own control, use one's own wallet to receive and send XMR and stop using exchanges as banks.

That would be true. Who cares how many times you're mixing, if they know your IP address and the amount sent? I personally don't have any issues with that (nothing to hide) but I see a pattern here, that reminds me of another similar situation about one and a half year ago and urges me to say once more, that we are in desperate need of another exchange.

we have the other exchange, but no one barely uses it ----> bittrex. For the case that polo gets hacked or does GoxStyle everything will shift to that exchange. And also if the Monero story succeeds other or new exchanges that may come will adopt it by themselves.

Exactly right. As I said before I don't know of anything wrong with Bittrex but people just want to trade where the most volume is, until and unless given some good reason to change. I have traded XMR on Bittrex on rare occasion though. Worked fine.

DaveyJones

hero member

Activity: 768

Merit: 505

Quote from: macsga on June 04, 2015, 02:02:06 AM

Quote from: ArticMine on June 04, 2015, 12:20:22 AM

I do not see mixin values being the issue here. What the MSB is required to do here is 1) Tell the recipient from whom the funds are coming from 2) Keep a record of the transaction including the recipient and sender. Of course an exchange can simply say that a customer can only withdraw from or deposit to an address under the customer's control. The solution is simple withdraw to a wallet under one's own control, use one's own wallet to receive and send XMR and stop using exchanges as banks.

That would be true. Who cares how many times you're mixing, if they know your IP address and the amount sent? I personally don't have any issues with that (nothing to hide) but I see a pattern here, that reminds me of another similar situation about one and a half year ago and urges me to say once more, that we are in desperate need of another exchange.

we have the other exchange, but no one barely uses it ----> bittrex. For the case that polo gets hacked or does GoxStyle everything will shift to that exchange. And also if the Monero story succeeds other or new exchanges that may come will adopt it by themselves.

macsga

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1002

Strange, yet attractive.

Quote from: ArticMine on June 04, 2015, 12:20:22 AM

I do not see mixin values being the issue here. What the MSB is required to do here is 1) Tell the recipient from whom the funds are coming from 2) Keep a record of the transaction including the recipient and sender. Of course an exchange can simply say that a customer can only withdraw from or deposit to an address under the customer's control. The solution is simple withdraw to a wallet under one's own control, use one's own wallet to receive and send XMR and stop using exchanges as banks.

That would be true. Who cares how many times you're mixing, if they know your IP address and the amount sent? I personally don't have any issues with that (nothing to hide) but I see a pattern here, that reminds me of another similar situation about one and a half year ago and urges me to say once more, that we are in desperate need of another exchange.

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: smooth on June 03, 2015, 08:24:05 PM

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 03, 2015, 07:20:25 PM

Quote from: Bassica on June 03, 2015, 05:31:30 AM

Risto, don't you think chances of Poloniex being involved in margin trading themselves is 'marginal' Wink

considering the regulatory framework they've to comply to? If you get caught with that, you'd have to close shop.

Speaking of regulatory framework, the BitLicense is out, and this part stuck out at me:

"No Licensee shall engage in, facilitate, or knowingly allow the transfer or transmission of Virtual Currency when such action will obfuscate or conceal the identity of an individual customer or counterparty."

In other words, if they are using a mix-in value greater than 0 for individuals in the State of New York, might it be a problem for them?

I don't really see it. If they are sending coins to you, then where those coins came from (which is what mixing does) is not obscuring the identify of you as their customer. They will have a record of sending coins to you, along with your KYC information. Should be good enough.

To me that sentence prohibits allowing things like straw buyers. I don't know how it would be interpreted in practice though, that's one of the problems with writing regulations for technologies that are in a fluid state of development and not even understood by the people writing the regulations.

I do not see mixin values being the issue here. What the MSB is required to do here is 1) Tell the recipient from whom the funds are coming from 2) Keep a record of the transaction including the recipient and sender. Of course an exchange can simply say that a customer can only withdraw from or deposit to an address under the customer's control. The solution is simple withdraw to a wallet under one's own control, use one's own wallet to receive and send XMR and stop using exchanges as banks.

jwinterm

legendary

Activity: 3164

Merit: 1118

Quote from: mrkavasaki on June 03, 2015, 07:47:41 PM

your coin will be pretty dead soon, when polo get hacked Grin

Do you have some inside info or something? Maybe we can get moneromooo to add a bet on his tippero bot about whether Poloniex will get hacked before some date that you specify, and then you can put your money where your (big, fat, stupid) mouth is.

Speaking of which, NBA Finals start tomorrow night. You can bet on winner in #tippero or #monero on freenode using tippero bot. Just type '!book' to check book and '!bet team amount' to bet.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 03, 2015, 07:20:25 PM

Quote from: Bassica on June 03, 2015, 05:31:30 AM

Risto, don't you think chances of Poloniex being involved in margin trading themselves is 'marginal' Wink

considering the regulatory framework they've to comply to? If you get caught with that, you'd have to close shop.

Speaking of regulatory framework, the BitLicense is out, and this part stuck out at me:

"No Licensee shall engage in, facilitate, or knowingly allow the transfer or transmission of Virtual Currency when such action will obfuscate or conceal the identity of an individual customer or counterparty."

In other words, if they are using a mix-in value greater than 0 for individuals in the State of New York, might it be a problem for them?

I don't really see it. If they are sending coins to you, then where those coins came from (which is what mixing does) is not obscuring the identify of you as their customer. They will have a record of sending coins to you, along with your KYC information. Should be good enough.

To me that sentence prohibits allowing things like straw buyers. I don't know how it would be interpreted in practice though, that's one of the problems with writing regulations for technologies that are in a fluid state of development and not even understood by the people writing the regulations.

kazuki49

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 03, 2015, 07:58:42 PM

However, for XMR, I still think that if they are knowingly using a mix-in higher than zero, then that might be construed as obfuscating or concealing the identity of an individual customer. Obviously, practically speaking, a person can easily re-send the amount they withdrew to another address using a higher mix-in value themselves, but that's not the point here.

This would be true if they (licensee) transfer to or from a person leaving no record of it, thats not the case and should never be considered the case with any 3rd-party service, I'll wait what other people say about this but to me its pretty clear.

mmortal03

legendary

Activity: 1762

Merit: 1011

Another, possibly more practical, way to look at it might be that at the point where they carry out a withdrawal, you don't qualify as their customer for those funds any more. You only count as their customer for transactions done *within* their system. You could even withdraw to someone else's address directly to pay them, so there's no reason to assume that it is the customer's address or coins at that point. At least for BTC this might fly.

However, for XMR, I still think that if they are knowingly using a mix-in higher than zero, then that might be construed as obfuscating or concealing the identity of an individual customer. Obviously, practically speaking, a person can easily re-send the amount they withdrew to another address using a higher mix-in value themselves, but that's not the point here.

mrkavasaki

hero member

Activity: 888

Merit: 500

your coin will be pretty dead soon, when polo get hacked Grin

mmortal03

legendary

Activity: 1762

Merit: 1011

Quote from: kazuki49 on June 03, 2015, 07:43:08 PM

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 03, 2015, 07:40:18 PM

Quote from: kazuki49 on June 03, 2015, 07:36:58 PM

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 03, 2015, 07:33:03 PM

Right, but, while technically, even transferring BTC to another address doesn't imply that they or anyone knows the individual holding them anymore, it doesn't necessarily "knowingly obfuscate or conceal the identity" like a mix-in does.

I didn't know my personal ID is broadcasted in each Bitcoin tx already, if thats the case you right Cheesy

Right, but, in that case, then *any* withdrawal to another address in *any* cryptocurrency that doesn't tack on your identity along with it would be knowingly obfuscating or concealing your identity.

dude are you a licensee?

No, just thinking through the ramifications that may come about because of this.

kazuki49

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 03, 2015, 07:40:18 PM

Quote from: kazuki49 on June 03, 2015, 07:36:58 PM

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 03, 2015, 07:33:03 PM

Right, but, while technically, even transferring BTC to another address doesn't imply that they or anyone knows the individual holding them anymore, it doesn't necessarily "knowingly obfuscate or conceal the identity" like a mix-in does.

I didn't know my personal ID is broadcasted in each Bitcoin tx already, if thats the case you right Cheesy

Right, but, in that case, then *any* withdrawal to another address in *any* cryptocurrency that doesn't tack on your identity along with it would be knowingly obfuscating or concealing your identity.

dude are you a licensee? Unless it says that an individual need to transact in virtual currency signed with their SSN in transparent blockchains proving its them and that they are not obfuscating anything then you are right and it not only makes Monero illegal but Bitcoin mixings too. You need to prove that all transactions made to any business or other individuals are not to yourself too because you may be trying to obfuscate and no lies, I can see everything in the blockchain Wink

mmortal03

legendary

Activity: 1762

Merit: 1011

Quote from: kazuki49 on June 03, 2015, 07:36:58 PM

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 03, 2015, 07:33:03 PM

Right, but, while technically, even transferring BTC to another address doesn't imply that they or anyone knows the individual holding them anymore, it doesn't necessarily "knowingly obfuscate or conceal the identity" like a mix-in does.

I didn't know my personal ID is broadcasted in each Bitcoin tx already, if thats the case you right Cheesy

Right, but, in that case, then *any* withdrawal to another address in *any* cryptocurrency that doesn't tack on your identity along with it would be knowingly obfuscating or concealing your identity.

kazuki49

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 03, 2015, 07:33:03 PM

Right, but, while technically, even transferring BTC to another address doesn't imply that they or anyone knows the individual holding them anymore, it doesn't necessarily "knowingly obfuscate or conceal the identity" like a mix-in does.

I didn't know my personal ID is broadcasted in each Bitcoin tx already, if thats the case you right Cheesy

mmortal03

legendary

Activity: 1762

Merit: 1011

Quote from: kazuki49 on June 03, 2015, 07:31:10 PM

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 03, 2015, 07:28:39 PM

Quote from: kazuki49 on June 03, 2015, 07:23:47 PM

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 03, 2015, 07:20:25 PM

Quote from: Bassica on June 03, 2015, 05:31:30 AM

Risto, don't you think chances of Poloniex being involved in margin trading themselves is 'marginal' Wink

considering the regulatory framework they've to comply to? If you get caught with that, you'd have to close shop.

Speaking of regulatory framework, the BitLicense is out, and this part stuck out at me:

"No Licensee shall engage in, facilitate, or knowingly allow the transfer or transmission of Virtual Currency when such action will obfuscate or conceal the identity of an individual customer or counterparty."

In other words, if they are using a mix-in value greater than 0 for individuals in the State of New York, might it be a problem for them?

Licensee means the exchange, and that it need to be like Polo is now, requiring your ID and stuff. Its not like you magically turn into batman when you use Monero with mixin.

If they transfer to another address with, say, a mix-in of 3, will they not be "knowingly allowing the transmission of Virtual Currency when such action will obfuscate or conceal the identity of an individual customer or counterparty"?

Its pretty obvious that it doesnt matter the mixing it will be recorded that X amount went to address Y that belong to person Z. Now what the person do with the moneroj is not their business anymore and it cannot be, its like taking cash out of a ATM.

Right, but, while technically, even transferring BTC to another address doesn't imply that they or anyone knows the individual holding them anymore, it doesn't necessarily "knowingly obfuscate or conceal the identity" like a mix-in does.

kazuki49

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 03, 2015, 07:28:39 PM

Quote from: kazuki49 on June 03, 2015, 07:23:47 PM

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 03, 2015, 07:20:25 PM

Quote from: Bassica on June 03, 2015, 05:31:30 AM

Risto, don't you think chances of Poloniex being involved in margin trading themselves is 'marginal' Wink

considering the regulatory framework they've to comply to? If you get caught with that, you'd have to close shop.

Speaking of regulatory framework, the BitLicense is out, and this part stuck out at me:

"No Licensee shall engage in, facilitate, or knowingly allow the transfer or transmission of Virtual Currency when such action will obfuscate or conceal the identity of an individual customer or counterparty."

In other words, if they are using a mix-in value greater than 0 for individuals in the State of New York, might it be a problem for them?

Licensee means the exchange, and that it need to be like Polo is now, requiring your ID and stuff. Its not like you magically turn into batman when you use Monero with mixin.

If they transfer to another address with, say, a mix-in of 3, will they not be "knowingly allowing the transmission of Virtual Currency when such action will obfuscate or conceal the identity of an individual customer or counterparty"?

Its pretty obvious that it doesnt matter the mixing it will be recorded that X amount went to address Y that belong to person Z. Now what the person do with the moneroj is not their business anymore and it cannot be, its like taking cash out of a ATM. You still have to report what you do with it tho Wink

mmortal03

legendary

Activity: 1762

Merit: 1011

Quote from: kazuki49 on June 03, 2015, 07:23:47 PM

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 03, 2015, 07:20:25 PM

Quote from: Bassica on June 03, 2015, 05:31:30 AM

Risto, don't you think chances of Poloniex being involved in margin trading themselves is 'marginal' Wink

considering the regulatory framework they've to comply to? If you get caught with that, you'd have to close shop.

Speaking of regulatory framework, the BitLicense is out, and this part stuck out at me:

"No Licensee shall engage in, facilitate, or knowingly allow the transfer or transmission of Virtual Currency when such action will obfuscate or conceal the identity of an individual customer or counterparty."

In other words, if they are using a mix-in value greater than 0 for individuals in the State of New York, might it be a problem for them?

Licensee means the exchange, and that it need to be like Polo is now, requiring your ID and stuff. Its not like you magically turn into batman when you use Monero with mixin.

If they transfer to another address (when you withdraw your XMR) with, say, a mix-in of 3, will they not be "knowingly allowing the transmission of Virtual Currency when such action will obfuscate or conceal the identity of an individual customer or counterparty"?

kazuki49

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: mmortal03 on June 03, 2015, 07:20:25 PM

Quote from: Bassica on June 03, 2015, 05:31:30 AM

Risto, don't you think chances of Poloniex being involved in margin trading themselves is 'marginal' Wink

considering the regulatory framework they've to comply to? If you get caught with that, you'd have to close shop.

Speaking of regulatory framework, the BitLicense is out, and this part stuck out at me:

"No Licensee shall engage in, facilitate, or knowingly allow the transfer or transmission of Virtual Currency when such action will obfuscate or conceal the identity of an individual customer or counterparty."

In other words, if they are using a mix-in value greater than 0 for individuals in the State of New York, might it be a problem for them?

Licensee means the exchange, and that it need to be like Polo is now, requiring your ID and stuff. Its not like you magically turn into batman when you use Monero with mixin.

mmortal03

legendary

Activity: 1762

Merit: 1011

Quote from: Bassica on June 03, 2015, 05:31:30 AM

Risto, don't you think chances of Poloniex being involved in margin trading themselves is 'marginal' Wink

considering the regulatory framework they've to comply to? If you get caught with that, you'd have to close shop.

Speaking of regulatory framework, the BitLicense is out, and this part stuck out at me:

"No Licensee shall engage in, facilitate, or knowingly allow the transfer or transmission of Virtual Currency when such action will obfuscate or conceal the identity of an individual customer or counterparty."

In other words, if they are using a mix-in value greater than 0 for individuals in the State of New York, might it be a problem for them?

Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1877. (Read 3314343 times)