BITCOIN

Zola.

eskbanker said:

Scottex99 said:

There is no KYC or AML for BTC. It's decentralised. I could have moved that 0.35 BTC to any of millions of wallets in the world and nobody can stop me. There is however checks, regs, tax etc to consider if/when you off ramp those coins into fiat and try to credit the money to your bank

The decentralisation and lack of control are obviously often cited as advantages of the technology and its implementation, but in the specific context of adoption as an actual currency, the prospect of recipients inadvertently being on the wrong end of the proceeds of crime surely has to be a negative factor?  Maybe that isn't a significant issue in El Salvador, but I'd have thought it would hinder acceptability in more developed economies....

Oh yes, no criminal has ever received a massive briefcase of untraceable cash before. 

eskbanker

Zola. said:

eskbanker said:

Scottex99 said:

There is no KYC or AML for BTC. It's decentralised. I could have moved that 0.35 BTC to any of millions of wallets in the world and nobody can stop me. There is however checks, regs, tax etc to consider if/when you off ramp those coins into fiat and try to credit the money to your bank

The decentralisation and lack of control are obviously often cited as advantages of the technology and its implementation, but in the specific context of adoption as an actual currency, the prospect of recipients inadvertently being on the wrong end of the proceeds of crime surely has to be a negative factor?  Maybe that isn't a significant issue in El Salvador, but I'd have thought it would hinder acceptability in more developed economies....

Oh yes, no criminal has ever received a massive briefcase of untraceable cash before. 

Not sure if that was actually intended to address the question, but the world of KYC/AML has made large quantities of cash much less acceptable than before for mainstream use, so that doesn't really form any sort of relevant or meaningful analogy.  In any case, my point wasn't about criminals receiving visibly suspicious money but non-criminals inadvertently receiving it if there was widespread adoption....

Zola.

Criminals will always find a way to be successful criminals ultimately. 

On Bitcoin (and all the other junk), KYC is there to get access to exchange markets to buy bitcoin, and you will need a KYC way to convert it back i.e. if you wish to sell to a fiat currency. It's really not very different from the cash world problem if you are a criminal and somehow have Pablo Escobar sums of cash lying about. That is what regulation has brought in.

In fact, it'd be wiser to try and conduct illegal activities with cash and with whatever money laundering technique there is available because all transactions on the bitcoin blockchain are very public, traceable and they are incorruptibly there forever. 

Cash, like a non-custodial bitcoin wallet, is relatively anonymous until you try to work with a bank.

However, down the road, IF Bitcoin does become the dominant monetary standard, then that effectively separates money from the state and it would be interesting to see what happens there...

Scottex99

eskbanker said:

Scottex99 said:

There is no KYC or AML for BTC. It's decentralised. I could have moved that 0.35 BTC to any of millions of wallets in the world and nobody can stop me. There is however checks, regs, tax etc to consider if/when you off ramp those coins into fiat and try to credit the money to your bank

The decentralisation and lack of control are obviously often cited as advantages of the technology and its implementation, but in the specific context of adoption as an actual currency, the prospect of recipients inadvertently being on the wrong end of the proceeds of crime surely has to be a negative factor?  Maybe that isn't a significant issue in El Salvador, but I'd have thought it would hinder acceptability in more developed economies....

Could be yeah, but random coins are very unlikely to land in your wallet given how specific the addresses are.

There’s a much higher chance that you interact with some coins tainted from the dark web historically but really that’s no different to the £20 note in your wallet that’s covered in coke and was in a strippers handbag yesterday 

HHarry

Scottex99 said:

eskbanker said:

Scottex99 said:

There is no KYC or AML for BTC. It's decentralised. I could have moved that 0.35 BTC to any of millions of wallets in the world and nobody can stop me. There is however checks, regs, tax etc to consider if/when you off ramp those coins into fiat and try to credit the money to your bank

The decentralisation and lack of control are obviously often cited as advantages of the technology and its implementation, but in the specific context of adoption as an actual currency, the prospect of recipients inadvertently being on the wrong end of the proceeds of crime surely has to be a negative factor?  Maybe that isn't a significant issue in El Salvador, but I'd have thought it would hinder acceptability in more developed economies....

Could be yeah, but random coins are very unlikely to land in your wallet given how specific the addresses are.

There’s a much higher chance that you interact with some coins tainted from the dark web historically but really that’s no different to the £20 note in your wallet that’s covered in coke and was in a strippers handbag yesterday 

Well I’m only going to tuck it back into her g-string the next time I’m in there.

Scottex99

Exactly. More efficient that way.

Forgot to say I think you'll find that most people with some good BTC bags, dont really care about the currency narrative. i.e. I've not been buying it for years expecting that one day I'll buy my shopping with it or that it will replace the $ or the £.

That narrative tends to come from people who are less involved and a potential reason why it could never "work".

The digital gold, store of value ideas are enough for me to stay bullish on it.

Merry Xmas all

Adyinvestment

Scottex99 said:

Exactly. More efficient that way.

Forgot to say I think you'll find that most people with some good BTC bags, dont really care about the currency narrative. i.e. I've not been buying it for years expecting that one day I'll buy my shopping with it or that it will replace the $ or the £.

That narrative tends to come from people who are less involved and a potential reason why it could never "work".

The digital gold, store of value ideas are enough for me to stay bullish on it.

Merry Xmas all

Same

The whole currency thing is just another bullish adoption narrative, for me it is a digital asset first and foremost.

spnego

Yes one good reason to own some btc is that the trajectory of all fiat currencies is going to zero.
Governments unfortunately have to continually print more money to keep the current debt based system from collapsing but this also means they are stealing our money by debasing it like a stealth tax.
This is one reason why assets look expensive because they are priced in denominations of fiat which have been devalued.

Global debt is currently about 4 times higher than global gdp so printing money is the only way to pay the debts and inflation is only going to continue. We can see the negative affects of high inflation on Agentina and more recently Turkey.

Zola.

spnego said:

Yes one good reason to own some btc is that the trajectory of all fiat currencies is going to zero.
Governments unfortunately have to continually print more money to keep the current debt based system from collapsing but this also means they are stealing our money by debasing it like a stealth tax.
This is one reason why assets look expensive because they are priced in denominations of fiat which have been devalued.

Global debt is currently about 4 times higher than global gdp so printing money is the only way to pay the debts and inflation is only going to continue. We can see the negative affects of high inflation on Agentina and more recently Turkey.

This is something that makes me question how can everyone not see that this system is bound to have a major tipping point at some stage? Surely this can not continue indefinitely, forever?
 

IvanOpinion

A non sequitor argument.  I wonder how governments would have 'afforded' to cover this crisis using cryptocurrency?  Maybe tell everyone that the NHS was bust and therefore you would have to pay for your own treatment, vaccinations and tests or maybe they would have put taxation through the roof from day 1.

There is a very strong case for electronic currencies but nothing about today fulfills the need!