or the purposes of funding terrorism, narcotics, human trafficking, weapons, uranium, endangered wildlife and/or biohazardous material.
There's a point at which if you undermine law enforcement enough there's no point in continuing to try to enforce laws, which means there's no point in having laws at all. The hype mob either doesn't see this or doesn't care, which is incredibly naive either way.
In my capacity of unofficial spokesperson for the hype mob, I would say that if a tool can be created that has legitimate and nonlegitimate purposes, criminalizing its creation or possession is the worst possible action to take, because it ensures that all talented people who are interested in developing it for legitimate purposes become disaffected at worst or aligned with your enemies at best. Setting aside the moral argument, the NSA's treatment of Snowden, Manning, et al. makes it much more difficult for the NSA to attract the best talent in its field.
> criminalizing its creation or possession is the worst possible action to take
Sure. That’s not what’s happening.
Tornado was used illegally. Its leadership kept developing it, kept getting paid, and made no apparent course corrections. This wasn’t simply a GitHub repo; it was a remunerated enterprise.
When I’ve brought up the legal issues around mixers, a common response involves the impossibility of governments to enforce their Will on blockchains. If these guys messaged similarly they’re justifiably boned.
Justifiable by what, exactly? International trade in a multipolar world requires a money supply that no single government can arbitrarily enforce its will on. Is the argument that every government should have an unchecked ability to enforce its will on the medium of exchange?
> International trade in a multipolar world requires a money supply that no single government can arbitrarily enforce its will on
Do we have such a money supply? If not, do we have international trade? Is the world not multipolar?
This claim fails on face value. Most of history was multipolar, international trading and reliant on money states de facto controlled. (You’re not moving tonnes of gold without the state’s permission and not being chased by them.)
An argument could be made that the US stopped being the arbiter of last resort wrt the medium of trade since the Ukraine war, but before that point, it was certainly not multipolar. There was one political entity that, along with its allies, controlled the value of money, and they were disincentivised from cheating too hard by the fact that they could dictate terms to the rest of the world if it was important enough to them.
But I grant you, heavily-guarded ships full of physical gold would still work today. If that's a future you're on board with you may want an answer for how the piracy problem will evolve if trends around the cost of kinetic weaponry continue.
I'm rejecting the premise that we need a neutral money supply. (I reject the notion such a thing can exist. Money--monetary value, even--are social constructs.)
International trade in a multipolar world with sovereign currencies and commodities works. It has since at least the Bronze Age. So yes, if someone wants to cart around gold or use crypto, that's fine. But it doesn't magically exempt them from the law. A Dutchman committed crimes under Dutch law. They were arrested in the Netherlands. This isn't some Kim Dotcom bullshit. It's the law being applied plainly.
Bronze age? No. Once gold leaves the sovereigns borders, it is a neutral money.
Since 1971? Yes. That is a very brief experiment in monetary history, and quite Lindy. It can be validly estimated to have 51 years of life left in it (albeit with vast error bars, difficult to calculate).
> Bronze age? No. Once gold leaves the sovereigns borders, it is a neutral money
"Neutral money" has no meaning in an era when information travels at the same speed as trade. (It arguably lacks any meaning today.)
Bronze Age civilizations didn't have the surplus labor to haul around gold. (Nor to test it.) Though they didn't have coins, they used token money--from engraved clay and stone markers to shells and beads. Commodity money was traded in representative form locally and physically over long distances. Commodities, not bullion, were used because they preserved value over distance--a Hittite trader couldn't know what a gold bullion would exchange for in Hispania or Egypt when they got there.
> stories based on implausible premises -”didnt have surplus labor" lol- are conspicuously unpersuasive
Versus stories about neutral money?
Insufficient labor is a hypothesis. The archaeological evidence is engraved clay and stone markers. Long-distance trades settled with commodities. Bullion being traded between kings and kingdoms, seldom by merchants, and abandoned stores of value holding jewelry, precious stones and spices.
International trade in multipolar worlds does fine without a "neutral" money.
...and the USD is used for far more illicit transactions than any other exchange medium. This will predictably change as privacy technologies become more widely adopted. For example, transactions on the Monero network have been growing at an exponential rate for several years.
> will predictably change as privacy technologies become more widely adopted. For example, transactions on the Monero network have been growing at an exponential rate for several years
The posts keep shifting for what governments cannot enforce. I suppose this is a natural endgame; crypto enthusiasts setting precedents for, and giving popular cause to, state expansion.
AML has never been even close to perfect. But it's enforced. Hopefully, the Monero community learns from Tornado. Instead of thumbing its nose at the law, it could try to not encourage illicit transfers in the name of some convoluted (if entirely unoriginal) interpretation of financial privacy. Then it could survive and become something novel, like Bitcoin.
IANAL but if your website has indicated that the software is useful for circumventing the law (I don’t know if they did this) then I imagine it could be possible to make the argument that you’ve induced a lot of people to commit felonies while profiting from it directly.
There's a point at which if you undermine law enforcement enough there's no point in continuing to try to enforce laws, which means there's no point in having laws at all. The hype mob either doesn't see this or doesn't care, which is incredibly naive either way.