I don't understand why technology that provides a modicum of privacy must be demonized. It must be for money laundering and criminals. It can't have a legitimate use case. Is it used for nefarious activities? Of course, but not exclusively so.
If 99% of BTC mixers' volume is helping laundering international drug trade money, arms or human trafficking, it's not exactly hard to demonize mixing itself. I have no data to base this on, but I assume that privacy absolutists are a tiny, tiny drop in the pool of blood and crime.
I think most people do feel that way about Tor, both in terms of assuming that 99% of its users are criminals and that it should be demonized. It's interesting to me because I think most of those people don't feel the same way about encryption in general, which of course enables Tor and all sorts of criminal activity in other contexts. Everyone has something to hide from someone and wants to see the green lock symbol in their browser's address bar along with other assurances of some degree of privacy. I don't know how most people decide where to draw a line.
There are some things that are perfectly legal for me to Google search, that I don’t want my ISP or Google to know about. So Tor works well for that. Tor would also be useful if governments were to crack down on free speech.
You can apply basically the same argument to money. If I have $20m in Bitcoin I don’t want my name to be tied to my wallet address (because a KYC exchange saw where the money went to) because it makes me a target, for example. And in the case of censorship or something I want to be able to do with the money what I please.
Privacy is a fundamental human right, in my opinion. We have to use cumbersome technology to get any modicum of true digital privacy. Just because people use it for illegal things doesn’t mean that the desire for privacy or the technology itself is bad. One day things we find morally just may be illegal too
Intentional consealment of illegal internet traffic isn't a crime (the crime is just the crime).
Intentional consealment of illegal financial transactions is a crime in-and-of itself (the crime is money laundering, which is a seperate offence to the original criminal activity that the money came from).
That’s just when two or more people get together to plan a crime - obfuscation isn’t the offence, the offence is the joint planning and intention to commit a crime.
Obviously you know that "demonized" is a loaded word here. What's your point in using it?
All I'm saying is that if there's something where "99% of [...] volume is helping laundering international drug trade money, distributing CSAM" that that is obviously terrible for the world and we should be asking some strong questions about who's supporting it and why. Is somebody gaining something that's more important than the lives forever ruined?
Mostly, yes. I sympathize with the goals in theory since I grew up on 90s internet dreams too but as a practical matter if you run a large website you’ll see mostly attacks from Tor, it shows up a lot in news about crime, and it’s noticeably helping people in actual repressive regimes because it’s still too easy to identify the network traffic when the stakes are high.
Is $540M considered a tangible amount? I'll let you quibble over that but I'd think most criminals would be more than happy to be able to launder $540M.
That's mixing or "anonymizing" your crpyto proceeds. To make use of this crypto, you need to convert it to the relevant currency of the country you are in. If you are based in the USA, your only option is the few regulated exchanges which will ask "lots" of questions for this amount of money. It doesn't stop there, you'll have to answer lots of questions for the banks too as you'll withdraw this money eventually.
If you made it this far, then you start the laundering process.
You can't launder money with Bitcoin because Bitcoin is not well integrated with any country financial devices in any meaningful manner.
just buy homes from individuals. or rent luxury homes and and sub rent them. there are many individuals who will turn a blind eye on their real estate for a 30% premium.
The answe is no but they can make a trade off using something like monero. BTC's only read advantage is the network effects. As far as the tech is concerned it is mediocre compared with other ledgers.
Privacy absolutists are free to deal in cash. Whatever amounts they send and receive, criminals and dictators do orders of magnitude more and people suffer as a result.
If it wasn't so sad it would be funny that the countries with highest levels of freedom and least corruption tend to be the ones with most vocal privacy absolutists...
The most powerful states don't need to launder any money, since they can just pass a law legitimizing any action they do, with no need to hide the funds generated from any one else.
This is irrelevant. Anything putin gang does is legal in Russia obviously but being able to clean blood money is vital for them. That's the point of sanctions and why any way around it like crypto is a godsend to dictators.
You're missing my point. Your example doesn't contradict it.
My point is that the most powerful countries don't need to clean their dirty money to spend their money abroad, because they are the center of the world economy, and everything is available to them to buy. Russia is economically on the periphery and thus does need to clean it.
Making it looks like "powerful country can do shady stuff and poor country needs to clean money" is not how reality works. Try being a violent dictator and do crime at a scale acceptable in Russia but in the US and then tell me how it goes.
If you are transacting in a business environment, I think it is an added benefit if the counterparty in the transaction can't deduce information out of your transaction. Such as how much assets you have, to what other services have you been sending funds and so on. As Bitcoin does have public ledger, and if you just use single address and don't do any privacy enchancing practices, lots of information could be deductible using blockchain analysis.
I would also suspect that using data collected by governments is used for business advantage. Of course it is hard to prove quite often. Personally I think that in principle it just doesn't make sense to spread your data around, as the benefits are tiny and the potential downsides can be big.
Using Tornado was pretty common among well known/higher profile people in the space to avoid causing inadvertent market effects or leak info about upcoming projects.
Basically if you were high profile enough, people would watch your wallets to see what you were investing in/transacting with, and use that as market intelligence.
As far back as 2016 or so I recall someone specifically offering their blockchain analysis platform as a way to do this.
So you would use tornado to make the money you planned to invest/use appear "somewhere else" disconnected, to maintain privacy/security of a project.
Tornado and mixers and such become necessary specifically because all transactions are public - unlike in tradfi where transactions are opaque except to parties and intermediaries.
Similarly to how investors in tradfi tend to keep their investment strategies secret where possible.
Also, if you want to be able to create legitimate projects that are not tied to your real-world identity, you need a break between bank -> exchange -> address -> ??? -> contract deployment address.
Scenario one. Individual (while working in a startup) is receiving some tokens as a compensation. Time passes. Their remuneration being on-chain and visible is a problem when negotiating salary in the next job.
Scenario two. I want to have on-chain identity (e.g. exo762.eth domain name). To register it I need to have some ETH (gas, registration fee). If I sent this ETH directly from my "money" account, I will forever link my public identity to my money, which is like walking around with "my net worth is at least XYZ USD" banner.
How are these scenarios "use cases" for a mixer and not critical flaws in the underlying system?
We're in a thread about a rogue state using the tech to steal money to fund their operations (Chemical attacks in airports, nuclear warheads, intercontinental ballistic missiles, etc.) How many nuclear detonations would you consider acceptable in exchange for the cryptobros to have their toys?
How many would you consider acceptable to have an international banking system? North Korea hackers stole $81 million from the Bangladesh central bank, and it was only a fluke that they didn't get away with over a billion from that one hack.
More prosaic wire fraud is common in real estate and B2B transactions, and if not noticed immediately the funds are often lost after being transferred internationally and cashed out. It wouldn't be surprising if NK is behind some of that, given what they managed against Bangladesh.
Providing some basic financial privacy, not from the government but from the general public. Everything on chain is public. When you buy something or transfer money to a friend, you don't necessarily want the recipient to know how much money is in your account, or what other addresses you've sent money to.
Lots of good examples already mostly geared around minimizing bits leaked for the sake of alpha, but there are also instances where it is desirable to be "locally clandestine" even if you're a full throated supporter of the powers that be on the whole. Persecution does not just come by way of financial penalties or the legal system, these tools are useful for avoiding social consequences as well. A hypothetical I'd expect to play well here: paying for an abortion in a large state where it is legal, but in a small town where the local church wields an immense amount of influence.
I agree in principal, however if the vast majority of a given service's users are using it for criminal activity then maybe there's room for some added scrutiny.
Signal is not a crypto mixer. The argument here is about the frequency a certain service is used for crime.
For example, library records generally have a fair amount of privacy. Criminals sometimes consult libraries. Crime is not the dominant use of libraries.
Mixers have a fair amount of privacy. Mixers are used by criminal, and crime is overwhelmingly the dominant use of mixers.
To rebut this you’d need to show large and innocent use cases which use mixers. Not an unrelated app.
I'm only arguing the definition shouldn't be changed to something that is explicitly negative, even if the vast majority of the time it's used for nefarious reasons.
We do if we want to preserve the little bit of wild are we have left and keep a decent quality of life where we can eat fruit and vegetables. Even cutting meat to zero isn't going to be enough.
It's an unpopular opinion for sure. But as it stands, our planet cannot sustain the way we exploit it. Our seas are being emptied and poisoned, we cut rainforest to be used for overcropping. It's what happens if you have 8 Billion people on a relative small planet. Sure we could do better but that's not in our nature untill doom stands on our doorstep.
Sorry for the pedantry, but Earth is not a "relatively small" planet. It's actually quite large for a rocky planet. Out of all the rocky planets and moons in our own system, Earth is by far the largest (except for Venus, which is about 90% the size). From what we're seeing with exoplanet research, it looks like Earth is still pretty large, though it's hard to tell since we have a hard time detecting smaller planets, and the "super-Earths" are more easily visible to us.
Of courses, compared to gas giants, Earth is small, but that's like comparing apples and whales.
It's actually quite popular among environmentalists. We need to make progress on sustainability, and we will. We CAN sustain 8 billion people because of the immense progress humans have made in food production and efficiency. Pretending the only solution is, less humans, is antithetical to everything humanity has accomplished.
"we" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your sentence but we're about 2 centuries away from complete population collapse of the species.
There are less babies born on this day than any day in history, and that will be true for the rest of our entire species' existence, barring major technological "Brave New World" style test tube baby advances (which are indeed extremely likely given this fact.)
