[crumbshot]

The article isn't wrong though. The main uses of cryptocurrencies, other than as speculative assets, are online drug dealing and ransomware payments.

For almost every other application, real money is more useable, convenient and reliable.

[meowface]

For Monero, yes, that's by far the predominant use. For a time, that was the predominant use for Bitcoin, but I'm pretty sure it isn't anymore as of like ~7 years ago, probably. (The article mentions Bitcoin - probably because ransomware operators know ransomware victims can more easily acquire Bitcoin than Monero - but for other kinds of serious black market activity it's almost always Monero.)

For others, I think it's totally untrue even from the start. It's actually usually a lot easier to launder USD than it is to launder something like Bitcoin or Ethereum, given every transaction is completely public and traceable.

[ethanbond]

The important feature of traditional accounts is that they’re all individually tied to some real-world entity. It’s hard to understand what money ultimately went where in a chain of 10,000 purposely convoluted transactions even if you can see the entire transaction record. Good luck creating 10k bank accounts to shuffle money around.

[meowface]

True. But if someone's goal is to launder, they're just going to use Monero - no need to do any kind of shuffling and mixing like that. It's simply untraceable by default and way more anonymous than USD or Bitcoin.

[meowface]

(I should've said "nearly untraceable".)

[paulsutter]

Actually bitcoin is terrible for illegal transactions. Everything is traced and logged for all time

> The beauty of Bitcoin, from a detective’s point of view, is that the blockchain records all. “If you catch a dealer with drugs and cash on the street, you’ve caught them committing one crime,” Meiklejohn says. “But if you catch people using something like Silk Road, you’ve uncovered their whole criminal history,” she says. “It’s like discovering their books.”

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/why-criminals-cant-h...

[fomine3]

But just BTC->XMR->BTC is fine for laundering, then they can buy anything by BTC.

[dsyrk]

Not for much longer the upcoming taproot feature will dramatically improve on-chain privacy.

[tromp]

Taproot is a decent improvement, but hardly a dramatic one. Dramatic improvement requires hiding amounts, such as the Liquid sidechain does.

[dsyrk]

In understand and my point is it makes such approaches dramatically more feasible. It might not activate though, 90% is a high threshold.

[tromp]

90% is not that high for an uncontroversial change that practically everyone wants.

[dogman144]

You’re going to have to cite that claim if you want it taken seriously. At this point it’s an old criticism with frequently used and valid counterpoints.

Given paying with crypto is as easy as a QR scan these days once someone is onboarded, the other claim that you use, convenience, is about to go out the window: see venmo, PayPal, CB integrations. You might not be following the industry much though?

The problem with your approach here is I hear that, and then I think of HSBC opening a branch for the Sinaloa Cartel, laundering absurds amount of money for them, and no one ever going to jail.

If the reason not to use crypto is not to support crime, have you or your friends used HSBC, and did you advocate for them to stop? There are several other banks on this roster as well. Two wrongs != right, but I’m not the one saying stop using fungible USD that has for certain touched crime.

[crumbshot]

> Given paying with crypto is as easy as a QR scan these days once someone is onboarded, the other claim that you use, convenience, is about to go out the window: see venmo, PayPal, CB integrations.

But why would you want to? In most cases, there's simply no benefit to using cryptocurrencies instead of real money.

Even if we could pay for our groceries, clothing, water, electricity, rent/mortgage, taxes, etc. with cryptocurrencies (which, for the most part, we can't) rather than real money, there's no compelling reason to do so.

[dogman144]

That’s another pretty common criticism, and it’s a fish don’t know water is wet situation for USA/lot of western counties.

Adoption reasons (and evidence) are fairly well known and proven in other parts of the globe that don’t have currency safety.

Fwiw Andreas Antonopolous’s content from early 2010s is good for working through this territory.

[spoonjim]

In fucked up countries even Bitcoin with its wild volatility is more secure than government currency. Cf Venezuela.