[madcow2]

So some poor soul gets stuck with the hot potato down the road(Ie their funds frozen for no apparent reason when the forensics flags them). The criminals know this and will cash out immediately as much as possible. How is that a good thing?

[swensel]

Analysis of the transactions could lead law enforcement to the attackers before they try to cash out. Centralized exchanges may also flag the attackers when they attempt to cash out. There is no guarantee they can cash out without getting caught first. It's not just that some poor new owner is left holding the bag. Addresses get blacklisted by law enforcement and the exchanges. I don't think those coins would continue to be transferred to new owners.

Those potential new owners would also probably just go trade on an exchange. If there is some big discount from a local party trying to get rid of the coins, wouldn't that raise some red flag?

The transactions for most cryptocurrency blockchains are viewable by all members of the public. With fiat, only the banks (or the governments) can see transactions. If I was to say there is some good thing, I would say that is a new innovation that hasn't been possible before. Cryptocurrency also does enable new illegal activities that weren't possible before, so there are definitely pros / cons, but I would say there are pros / cons to fiat as well.

[vmception]

These are bad assumptions about what options and interests and motives that attackers have.

Laundering is very easy with cryptocurrency. Despite the transparency on chain, how can anyone distuingish between someone buying a meme coin earlier and cashing out at 80,000% gains, versus someone with two accounts and bought a meme coin with clean money (account 1) and then pumped that meme coin 80,000% with their dirty money (accounts 2 through n) coming from different addresses. The dirty money accounts are now saddled with the meme coin, and the clean money accounts as well as yours and every other fomo trader's account that sold now has the more liquid cryptocurrency. For all reporting purposes, everyone has clean money and simply was a good trader. No investigator or government is proposing that traders are liable for determining who they traded against when its onchain or in an offchain exchange.

Secondly, not everyone wants fiat currency. The attackers can invest in other cryptos and make any founder or fund popular and highly revered. They can acquire goods and services and access with the crypto itself. They aren't sitting there trying to figure out how they can buy multimillion dollar houses and yachts, as its not a priority, but if they do want a lot of fiat its always available.

[swensel]

I do think blockchain analysis will get more advanced over time and people who think they are anonymous now may have a rude awakening years down the line, but from what I can tell, you know crypto better than I do.

IMO, if folks wants privacy now they should actually use privacy focused crypto, but I also think the public nature of crypto is one of the interesting parts of it. I know there are privacy diehards and I can understand why, but I'm more interested about the technology in general.

[vmception]

yeah private cryptos like the Secret Network, Monero, or Tornado.cash contract on the Ethereum network all have a way for the user to provide audits. so what you find interesting about the technology is still available or even more available. Secret Network offloads necessary state information into Intel SGX chips that all the validators have. Tornado.cash generates state information client side and offloads it all client side and must be saved by the user, for now. Monero is much more complicated.

ultimately the only thing changing is the state's ability to flag electronic transactions, as there are no financial intermediaries for them to deputize. they didn't have that ability in the cash based system, and they temporarily got used to it in the electronic one. This is just a reversion to the mean.

[slver]

> With fiat, only the banks (or the governments) can see transactions. If I was to say there is some good thing, I would say that is a new innovation that hasn't been possible before.

What do you mean it hasn't been possible. It's absolutely possible. We don't do it because no one wants to advertise how much money they have and who they give it to, unless compelled by a specific reason.

> Cryptocurrency also does enable new illegal activities that weren't possible before, so there are definitely pros / cons, but I would say there are pros / cons to fiat as well.

So the pros are things we could do (publish our private transactions), but we don't want to, and the cons are things we could do (blackmail each other), but we don't want to.

Lol, great.

[swensel]

For me it is that I think the general public has no choice in the matter now, the banks and governments do. That is the difference I see.

[slver]

You have the choice of downloading your account history and copy pasting it here for us to see. Can you think of a reason why you wouldn't do that?

Also does Bitcoin give you a "choice" in exposing your wallet transactions? How is Bitcoin's lack of privacy choice "a choice", and your choice whether to keep your bank account history private or not, "not a choice".

It's say crypto gives you less choice. And even worse, the way crypto chose, to expose transactions, makes actually the regular folks more vulnerable.