[trotro]

Didn't think I'd see a "I've got nothing to hide" argument on HN. Are you also against E2E messaging apps for the same reason?

Being able to anonymously transfer value should be a fundamental right, as part of our fundamental right to privacy. In the past, cash could be used for that, but with society going increasingly cashless and some governments trying to make large cash transfers illegal, crypto is now the only way to keep this right.

[steego]

When has anonymously transferring large values of money ever been a right? It’s never been a right.

It’s like saying money laundering should be a right or evading taxes should be a right.

Cash transactions and commerce has been regulated for most of human history, whether it’s been for tax collection purposes or to regulate certain types of transactions.

People who work in cash businesses have never had a right to anonymity. They’ve always had to report sales receipts and earnings so they can pay income, sales taxes or value added taxes.

If you want to buy things with cash, you can. If they don’t take paper currency, use a gift card.

Keep in mind, you’re on camera everywhere and your phone is always tracking you. Practically speaking, it’s very unlikely you’ve been anonymous for some time.

[ashwagary]

>When has anonymously transferring large values of money ever been a right?

Most of human history. People were born with this right.

[empthought]

I don't know where to begin telling you how wrong you are. Hammurabi's code has plenty of examples of a punishment of being put to death because you didn't have witnesses, a contract, or a receipt for paying for something. (It's easy for someone else to accuse you of stealing.)

[ashwagary]

Incorrect.

Even in Hammurabi's code, receipts for agents, witnesses, and contracts, were only used for settling disputes in court where fraud may have been committed. Those instances with conflicting claims were a tiny minority of overall transaction volume, meaning receipts were optional and not required for the vast majority of transactions; especially between trusted parties.

As far as that "state" was concerned, all transactions were anonymous until a dispute was brought to court.

[empthought]

Incorrect. The reason fraud was rare was because of the general insistence on documentation. Court challenges were rare because people did in fact KYC.

[ashwagary]

False. What Hammurabi's code describes is a customer keeping proof of agreement for settling disputes which is Know Your Seller (KYS) not KYC, and it was not required.

[leshow]

> Being able to anonymously transfer value should be a fundamental right

Why? That doesn't seem like that would produce good outcomes. It's not a 'fundamental right' to transfer unlimited amounts of money with no oversight.

Money is not speech. If you care at all about governments being able to function from taxes, financial regulation, and myriad other things, you don't want people to be able to anonymously transfer as much money as they want.

Even cash has regulations about reporting, especially over certain amounts.

[mabbo]

I feel like you're conflating my argument a bit. I'm not saying "People with nothing to hide... etc". I'm saying that as a user, I'm going to pick the option that is best for me.

Crypto is never going to be the option that is best for me. Nor most of 8 billion other people on the planet.