[baobob]

If a technology makes money laundering a prerequisite to privacy, the technology itself is bullshit. There's no need to spend words to justify this further.

In no other industry would you find for example, "we made a better hammer, but when you use it to drive nails as a minor side effect, it may/may not fund the abuse of children and development of nuclear weapons by rogue states"

If you truly believe in privacy, it's okay to simply say the technology is fundamentally broken by design and seek a better alternative.

[stickfigure]

That $5 hammer you bought at Harbor Freight unquestionably contributes in a tiny way to human rights abuses by an authoritarian regime.

[cowtools]

money-laundering is obviously a consequence of any technology that enhances the privacy of financial transctions.

You might as well say that any technology should be thrown out if somewhere, somehow, hypothetical bad guys could use it.

Build a better hammer that is great at hitting nails, but can't be used to bash someone's skull in.

[tsimionescu]

No, money laundering is a consequence of any technology that tries to remove trusted 3rd parties from finance while not completely giving up on privacy the way Bitcoin does, which is an absurd goal in and of itself.

You can have excellent privacy while not permitting money laundering if you have good, trustworthy banks that properly enforce AML while not cooperating with law enforcement unnecessarily.

[celticninja]

That's a terrible analogy.