[Loic]

It is interesting that I have strictly no empathy for the people defending "privacy" in crypto. I have it fully for the ability to pay in cash for our every day stuff.

Privacy in crypto is basically reallowing tax havens in the "digital" world where we spent years to try to curtain them in the "real" world.

A good friend of us happens to be working at a high level at the EU commission. Discussing about Bitcoin/Crypto, his answer was simple: "We will ban all crypto as soon as we consider it to create problems with taxes".

Coinbase would win the case, it would be one more step in the direction of a ban in the EU.

[ssklash]

I think the point of this case is far less about privacy and crypto, but the fact that the US government sanctioned an entire piece of software. People use the software for privacy, and the government sanctioned it because it was being used for illegal things, but the fact that they can unilaterally sanction a piece of software is scary. Imagine if they sanctioned Tor Browser or Signal, both of which are used for privacy and can be used for illegal activity.

[Loic]

The government has to balance stuff.

Cash can and is used to buy/sell on the black market and also to buy/sell privately without leaving traces. But it is very difficult to move large amounts of money with cash. It means, it provides privacy with an acceptable level of freedom to do illegal stuff.

Privacy in crypto enables the same but it also allows bad actors to move extreme large amounts of money. The risks for the government are here so big, they cannot accept it.

[TimeBearingDown]

I largely agree - to this comment, not your parent post - but the technology is here. Governments couldn’t accept citizens with easy access to strong encryption either, but they have had to make do ever since. Not all of the code can be sanctioned. The Monero project continues to mature, can be used as a “mixer” for other coins, and can be bought or sold using networks like Bisq.

[nl]

> the fact that the US government sanctioned an entire piece of software.

Well they sanctioned the use of that software.

I don't really see why this is seen as such a problem. Banks that are used primarily for criminal activity get sanctioned frequently.

It's pretty clear judging by the amount of money going though Tornado cash and the amount that was from publicly known hacks known to be flowing through it that the majority of the money was from illegal activity.

> Imagine if they sanctioned Tor Browser or Signal, both of which are used for privacy and can be used for illegal activity.

But they didn't.

But forums that are focused on illegal activities get shutdown all the time.

[rabite]

> reallowing tax havens in the "digital" world where we spent years to try to curtain them in the "real" world.

Singapore and Hong Kong have all been tax havens for virtually the entire history of their existence as nations. Nevis has corporate secrecy protected as a right in its Constitution. There has been no attempt to address any of these jurisdictions. Being low empathy for crypto is being low empathy for the middle class, which thanks to RingCT and zk-Snarks has the ability to have the same level of financial privacy as megamillionaires who can afford to spend a thousand dollars or more setting up a trust in Nevis. Ten percent of all the world's wealth is run out of tax havens -- an amount that has gone up, not down, the opposite of curtains.

Common people should be allowed the same level of financial privacy as the rich -- that is to say complete and total. It is a basic human right. If governments ban crypto, we should start banning governments.

[miracle2k]

"ability to pay in cash for our every day stuff" is curiously weak. "The war on cash" has resulted in a great number of restrictions over the years, precisely because it is such an effective way to avoid taxes. What does your support for "privacy" mean here? Which rules do you support rolling back? Which of the coming further restrictions will you oppose?

[jim_kreggis]

Having to use digital currency for everything with no privacy and complete government control is going to be amazing, you're right!

[EdwardDiego]

Anyone who genuinely thought that cryptocurrency would be usable for completely anonymous transactions without regulation is woefully näive.

Note I used "would" not "should", the latter is ideology, the former acknowledgement of reality.

[jim_kreggis]

The point is crypto has potential to be used whether regulators like it or not. Regulators will do everything they can to prevent this of course, but it at least means we have the potential to transact privately vs. not having any chance at all.

[EdwardDiego]

Sure, just like you have the potential to import heroin in your GI tract.

[jim_kreggis]

Do you want to actually reply or just be snarky?

[EdwardDiego]

I was being facetious - people can use crypto contrary to regulation just as heroin sellers sell contrary to regulation.

There's consequences in both instances. It's just how rule of law is.

[Loic]

If you read my comment, I explicitly said that we should keep cash.

[ricochet11]

First off, i like cash and try to do most transactions with cash.

But in an increasingly computational world it seems useful, probably inevitable, that digital programmable money will play a bigger part in the future.

So do we want p2p borderless networks, built on a history of foss and the internet, with varying mixtures of privacy and transparency? or do we want government digital coins that will likely be fully surveilled and centrally controlled?

which is more resilient? which is harder to corrupt? which provides everyday people with liberty and control? which removes power from rulers and pushes it to participants?

"We should keep cash" doesn't seem like a reasonable stance to take at this point. We need to defend our rights to publish free open source code, to freely associate over networks with other individuals and organisations, and to maintain/develop our privacy in our private interactions.

I dont see the version made by the government respecting those concerns, it is too easy to throw up a patriot act, to say "what about the paedophiles/terrorists/drugdealers" and suddenly law abiding citizens have their rights restricted and power becomes ever more centralised and hierarchical.

It is surprising to me to come to a site called hackernews, and see such little hacker spirit. It really feels that "crypto is icky" idea has taken hold so strongly that people are happy to give up their rights because the people they dont like will be less profitable. That is incredibly sad.

It seems if you post a SAAS website for finding rare sneakers you get HN praise as though that is peak culture, but if you choose to hack on money, ownership, provision of public goods, voting, borderless systems, and anonymous organisations, to actually address what power and democracy looks like in our future you are too close the dirty people. No we must stay as we are, we must trust the institutions, because everyone was happy before bitcoin, right?...

[jim_kreggis]

"people are happy to give up their rights because the people they dont like will be less profitable"

This is the real reason people get so irrationally mad about crypto. There's no difference between the importance of encrypted communication and encrypted transactions, except that there's money involved. There's many people using web3 hype and bullshit as a grift, and many (most) people who see crypto as a speculative bubble they can get in on but neither of these things change the fact that it's the only trustless form of digitial payment we have. Terrorists can kill thousands of people, governments can kill millions, so I'm much more worried about one than the other.

[pjc50]

> Terrorists can kill thousands of people, governments can kill millions

And this is why it's important not to build a system which will allow sanctions evasion by Russia or North Korea. One crypto advocate already forgot that and ended up jailed for complicity in North Korean sanctions breaking.

[hbbio]

Already gone: There is a limit of 1000 euros for cash payment. Even an iPhone is out of the range now!

https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F10999#...).

(French government source)

[frozencell]

This government and its services has to be a joke, "how to make it much harder than it is"... I don't know how much time it will continue to operate until toltal disruption.

[jim_kreggis]

And what are you going to do if governments get rid of it? You have no recourse, only privacy coins like monero offer some.

[yata69420]

Cash is already effectively gone in a lot of situations.

[Loic]

Your argument is a logical fallacy.

You should not have knife at home, because you could kill somebody with one. <-> We should allow full privacy on crypto, because the government could kill cash.

[jim_kreggis]

My point is that it's pointless to be idealistic about how things should be, what matter is how they are. Why would a government which seeks to track its citizens every move keep cash around, when digital money suits their purposes better, and the vast majority of people pay using their phone or card anyway? When that happens, you have 0 way of transacting with anyone without the government watching over your shoulder.

[rvz]

> A good friend of us happens to be working at a high level at the EU commission. Discussing about Bitcoin/Crypto, his answer was simple: "We will ban all crypto as soon as we consider it to create problems with taxes".

'Banning all crypto' is just as realistic as banning all use of end-to-end-encryption (E2EE) in apps, tools, etc because it allows criminals, terrorists and scammers to hide their communications for doing illegal activities.

The fact is, a total 100% ban on either of them is an unrealistic and hopelessly utopian request beyond delusional.

[nlitened]

> “We will ban all crypto as soon as we consider it to create problems with taxes”

Surely you were not discussing those things with the Great Dictator of EU, not accountable in their decisions to citizens and courts?

[imtringued]

The EU parliament has elections and the politicians you can vote for are your own elected national politicians...

The only questionable thing here is that you cannot vote for politicians of other EU nations and that there is literally only one EU wide party called Volt.

[frozencell]

Genuine question. What do you know about the U.S. law and mode of operation?

[LtWorf]

If a ban in EU would make people in bars stop trying to convince me to buy in their favourite cryptocurrency, I'm all for it!

[highwaylights]

A meteor strike directly on top of the bar wouldn’t stop this from happening.