[consonants]

Yes, because the motivations behind money laundering are driven almost exclusively by crime. For purchases you wish to remain private, such as personally embarrassing products, there are 'anonymizing' but traceable services for you to save face with.

There are very few legitimate reasons to be concealing where you money came from or is going from the IRS, and they well aware of the intent behind the actions.

[Amadou]

The problem isn't the IRS, it is everybody else who wants to know. Especially in the case of bitcoin where all transactions are public record.

Come up with a way for the IRS to investigate (not just get it handed to them on a platter, but something that mathematically requires a level of effort to prevent fishing expeditions by IRS employees) while simultaneously keeping all transactions private from everyone else and then we'll have a solution.

[nazgulnarsil]

>There are very few legitimate reasons to be concealing where you money came from or is going from the IRS, and they well aware of the intent behind the actions

Nice circular reasoning. Because everything that the IRS would disapprove of is illegitimate? When did the IRS get ultimate moral authority?

[superuser2]

IRS doesn't care what the money is from or for, only that Uncle Sam gets what he's owed. Income from criminal enterprises is not special: you have to pay taxes on it like everything else. The source of the income is kind of don't-ask-don't-tell.

Spending on sex toys is not special, unless the national security apparatus (or more likely your competitor in the private sector) already has a reason to try to discredit you. Which is a valid concern for activists, but not most people.

Investigations and enforcement actions by the IRS have nothing to do with the morality of your checking account statement and everything to do with tax evasion.

The largest threat to your financial privacy is private enterprise. Underwriters, prospective employers, and others with a financial stake in your "good behavior" are the most interested in judging the moral acceptability/health/prudence of your financial choices.

[exo762]

> Spending on sex toys is not special, unless the national security apparatus (or more likely your competitor in the private sector) already has a reason to try to discredit you. Which is a valid concern for activists, but not most people.

Amazing.

Translation: "Rights are essential for small group of people, because everyone else is not exercising them anyway. So lets just take the rights away".

[superuser2]

From where do you derive a right to hide your finances from a government whose power to levy an income tax is explicitly codified in the Constitution?

[exo762]

1) Bitcoin is incredibly more transparent than banking system or tax system. If anything, it is not convenient for tax evaders. HSBC, however, managed to launder 200bln of drug money.

2) I'm a person. I have to pay taxes. Top500 corps - not so much, in practice. What do you say about that?

3) Where the fuck did you get that I'm a tax evader? I was addressing your point about people's rights and your evaluation of their need of having those rights.

[mindcrime]

There are very few legitimate reasons to be concealing where you money came from or is going from the IRS

That's irrelevant. I don't need a reason for concealing where my money comes from.

Oh sure, the IRS may disagree, but I have a really hard time giving a shit about what the IRS thinks.

[PeterisP]

Well, you may ignore IRS but it doesn't mean that IRS will ignore you; and it is perfectly able to take your stuff and liberty even if you don't give a shit about what they think.

[fexl]

Point taken, but in spite of their aspirations, they are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Thank goodness.

[fexl]

I make sure Uncle Soprano gets his cut.