[acdha]

> In the same sense that breathing air is not a victimless crime unless you can prove that none of the people breathing the air are using the oxygen to help their bodies harm a victim.

No, in the sense that when you are telling people to leave an existing process which has safeguards you are then taking on the responsibility for not causing a regression in the level of protection.

Breathing air isn’t a good comparison because it doesn’t have the primary purpose of evading oversight. More appropriate comparisons do: cash, wire transfers, store credit, etc. all have restrictions to curtail criminal activity because we know that it is otherwise inevitable. Unless you can show that all use of cryptocurrency is benign we have to assume that it will follow every other financial system in human history and be used for a mix of purposes, and thus require the same mitigations.

[notch656a]

> Unless you can show that all use of cryptocurrency is benig

So prove you're innocent.

Yeah no thanks. I hope crypto finds a way to totally squash warrantless search of your documents (AKA KYC) to engage in finance.

[acdha]

No, proving that you have adequate protection. Banks don’t need to show that every transaction is legit because they do show that they have processes for dealing with crime (try anonymously depositing $50k in cash).

Cryptocurrency does not have those safeguards and is famously popular for all kinds of criminal activities so it’s hard to take seriously the assertion that it’s all victimless and doesn’t need the same countermeasures.

[notch656a]

Depositing $50k in cash is not evidence of a victim. There should be no government imposed search without probable cause a crime has occurred thus it should be illegal (for government) to stop the anonymous deposit outside further evidence.

That one can transfer $50k worth of something like XMR, seemingly anonymously, is the entire point. You get your 4th amendment rights back.

[acdha]

Again, this thread started with someone asserting that money laundering didn't matter because it was victimless. My position is that this is absurd because not only is there no evidence showing that cryptocurrency transactions aren't used for crimes with victims, there is considerable evidence of real harm just from the ransomware use.

If you want to argue that your bank checking ID is an illegal search, feel free to contact your elected representative.

[notch656a]

No they responded that "AML/KYC violations " (the allegations they responded about) were "generally (although not always) victimless crimes."

The violation wasn't money laundering the violation was not putting into place state mandated guards to impose AML compliance and the appropriate (arguably unconstitutional) searches.

[acdha]

Yes, this has been covered extensively. Money laundering is a crime primarily committed to cover up other crimes. It’s “victimless” in the sense that driving the get away car or fencing stolen goods is – and if you remember the example I gave earlier of ransomware, there are categories of crime which would not be committed if non-KYC cryptocurrencies didn’t exist because they would not be cost-effective.