[lmm]

> Expand that out into larger purchases, which then imply you're a criminal unless you provide full KYC.

Well yeah, that's the whole point isn't it? Like, the business doesn't want to be getting paid out of ransomware ransoms, they want money in a clean currency, and so at some point someone has to exchange clean money for ransom tokens, and if you offer to do that without verification then you're essentially part of the ransomware industry and people will treat you accordingly.

[latchkey]

You lost me at "clean currency". No such thing.

[snapcaster]

Come on man, you know exactly what he meant don't be like this

[latchkey]

  * business doesn't want to be getting paid out of ransomware ransoms

Exactly why I said my point 2 above.

  * at some point someone has to exchange clean money for ransom tokens

There is no such thing as "clean money" or "clean currency". There is fiat (aka: government money), which definitely isn't something I'd describe as "clean". It is usually backed by a bunch of people who tend to kill others (aka: US military) and that tends to be rather... dirty.

What is really going on is that they are referring to the crypto industry as some sort of "ransomware ransoms" and if you combine those two nonsense arguments (ransomware+clean), with the HN crypto hater bias, I didn't see it worth the effort to continue on, regardless of the downvotes I received.