[ASalazarMX]

> They are explicitly a product for user privacy

That's the facade. In my experience, Bitcoin is still the main ecoin demanded in phishing/ransomware incidents, even when more privacy-friendly ecoins exist. A tumbler's purpose is distorting Bitcoin's public blockchain (one of its core tenets), and that's very attractive to criminals.

[cdiddy2]

Of course its attractive to criminals. Same reason they love cash. Doesn't mean that we should ban cash

[wcfields]

> ban cash

Well, it's not banned, but over $10k USD in cash you need to fill out an IRS form 8300 [1] precisely to curb criminal use of cash. (Although I'd argue it should be upped and pegged to inflation as 10k isn't what 10k used to be.)

[1] https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...

[notch656a]

Wouldn't filing a form 8300 be unconstitutional violation of the 5th amendment if the cash is an element of the crime of both parties? As an example, felons can't be charged with NFA violations for owning a short barrel rifle for example because registering their firearm would be self-incrimination. I believe Timothy Leary also got out of being charged with Marijuana reporting [tax] requirement because filing for the tax would self-incriminate his possession.

Edit: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States for NFA. Thanks below for Leary.

[ccooffee]

I have NEVER heard of any of this. Can you provide any sources?

I think the 5th has been restricted enough by the courts that it literally only matters if you EXPLICITLY invoke it. (At least this is my understanding of Berghuis v. Thompkins.)

[vageli]

Leary v United States https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/6/

[giantg2]

Criminals are still required to pay taxes, they just aren't required to list its source (misc entry on income form). Leary's case was won on the basis that the registering provision violated the right to not self-incriminate (and that you couldn't pay that tax without registering).

Similar for the NFA case - they can't get then for the failure to register, but they can still get them for manufacturing/possessing it (especially since it was amended after the ruling).

[notch656a]

>Criminals are still required to pay taxes, they just aren't required to list its source

>they can't get then for the failure to register

A criminal filing an 8300 would be effectively "registering" their illegally owned money, including the source from who the money is received.

[giantg2]

Please read prior comment

"and that you couldn't pay that tax without registering"

[JumpCrisscross]

> Doesn't mean that we should ban cash

Mixers aren’t banned. A mixer that was used to launder money by North Korea was.

[cdiddy2]

And yet US banks aren't banned https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/secret-documents-show-how...

[JumpCrisscross]

> yet US banks aren't banned

Banks which collect KYC and respond to criminal probes. Those that don’t absolutely get sanctioned.

[Laaas]

All decentralised (non-custodial) mixers could be used by North Korea. Should they all be banned?