# BoE Governor says that Bitcoin should not be anonymous



## Brendan Burgess (30 Jan 2018)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...um=social&cmpid==socialflow-twitter-economics

Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said cryptocurrency payments are often used for money laundering or other illicit activity and he’s against users having their identities kept secret from authorities.

Carney, who also chairs the global Financial Stability Board, said he wasn’t talking about investors who are buying digital currencies such as bitcoin to speculate on increases in value.

“A lot of the underlying use for these currencies has been illicit activity, particularly money laundering,” he told a committee of lawmakers in the U.K. Parliament on Tuesday. Anonymity means you are “potentially closing a chain which at somewhere along it had some illicit activity. One doesn’t have anonymity for bank account transactions, why would you for cryptocurrency transactions?”


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Jan 2018)

The amount of money laundering using cash v Bitcoin is non-comparable. Why aren't central bankers like Carney calling publicly for an end to cash? 
It does appear that money laundering inside the system (with cash) is significantly more tolerable than money laundering outside the system.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Jan 2018)

Cash is necessary. 

Bitcoin is not. 

Brendan


----------



## jman0war (30 Jan 2018)

Cash isn't necessary.

Banks and governments have created enormous power through control of currency.
They don't like it when the little people bypass them.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Jan 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Cash is necessary.



For money laundering, yes.

However, a digitalised electronic financial transaction system is totally plausible now. Ask Duke, he is already 99% there! I rarely use cash myself. And it is, and has been, the primary tool for money laundering throughout history. So why have banks tolerated, and continue to tolerate, cash as a tool for money laundering?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Jan 2018)

The vast majority of people still use cash even if many use electronic means.

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Jan 2018)

Including myself. But it's not necessary anymore. It can be got rid off, and with it, it's use as a tool for money laundering. Unfortunately, central bankers seem a bit coy in calling for it.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (30 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Including myself. But it's not necessary anymore. It can be got rid off, and with it, it's use as a tool for money laundering. Unfortunately, central bankers seem a bit coy in calling for it.


Do you want to be paid your wages in bitcoin we could pegged it at the exchange rate of the 1st of January 2018 and hold it at that rate until the First of January 2019,


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Jan 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> Do you want to be paid your wages in bitcoin we could pegged it at the exchange rate of the 1st of January 2018 until the First of January 2019,



No, do you?


----------



## RobFer (30 Jan 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-30/carney-says-cryptocurrency-transactions-shouldn-t-be-anonymous?utm_content=economics&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid==socialflow-twitter-economics
> 
> Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said cryptocurrency payments are often used for money laundering or other illicit activity and he’s against users having their identities kept secret from authorities.
> 
> ...


Do these people have any experience with cryptocurrency? How many cryptocurrency users are anonymous. In my experience it is beyond the ability of non experienced people to use cryptocurrency anonymously because all of the exchanges require ID.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (30 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> No, do you?


Retired,I paid hard earned punts/euros in  happy to take it out in euros,
Keep up the good work,


----------



## jman0war (30 Jan 2018)

Why do i get the feeling that if one goes to their dealer and buy something illegal using cash that's one thing; but if they buy it using bitcoin then it's a much bigger deal?


----------



## TheBigShort (31 Jan 2018)

Exactly, at the end of the day there is only thing that is being laundered - cash. 
Bitcoin, art, casinos, bookmakers, off-the-book accounting, property etc are simply tools to use to turn dodgy cash into 'legitimate' cash. 

Cash is the problem, not bitcoin.


----------



## Jim2007 (31 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The amount of money laundering using cash v Bitcoin is non-comparable. Why aren't central bankers like Carney calling publicly for an end to cash?
> It does appear that money laundering inside the system (with cash) is significantly more tolerable than money laundering outside the system.



First of all we have no idea how much money laundering is going on via Bitcoin and secondly there is absolutely no reason what so ever  that we should allow a system to flourish that has a very strong potential to allow such activities to be conducted.


----------



## TheBigShort (31 Jan 2018)

Jim2007 said:


> First of all we have no idea how much money laundering is going on via Bitcoin and secondly there is absolutely no reason what so ever  that we should allow a system to flourish that has a very strong potential to allow such activities to be conducted.



Would you be in favour of banning cash? There is no requirement for it anymore as everything can be bought electronically now.
No cash, no (certainly less) money laundering.


----------



## Sunny (31 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Would you be in favour of banning cash? There is no requirement for it anymore as everything can be bought electronically now.
> No cash, no (certainly less) money laundering.



It's not the same thing. Laundering cash requires huge effort. Even physically moving or storing large amounts of cash is difficult. Laundering bitcoin and other crypto currencies is not as easy as people think but it is still much more ideal for laundering and illegal transactions than cash. That's just the reality. Doesn't make them the tool of the devil but it does mean that authorities are right to be concerned.


----------



## TheBigShort (31 Jan 2018)

Sunny said:


> It's not the same thing. Laundering cash requires huge effort. Even physically moving or storing large amounts of cash is difficult. Laundering bitcoin and other crypto currencies is not as easy as people think but it is still much more ideal for laundering and illegal transactions than cash. That's just the reality. Doesn't make them the tool of the devil but it does mean that authorities are right to be concerned.



Laundering cash can be quite simple.
Its been going on for donkeys years, and as for storing and moving large amounts - where there is a will there is a way. If the reward is considered worth the risk, then people will launder money including large amounts involving physical movement and storage.


----------



## jman0war (31 Jan 2018)

Jim2007 said:


> First of all we have no idea how much money laundering is going on via Bitcoin and secondly there is absolutely no reason what so ever  that we should allow a system to flourish that has a very strong potential to allow such activities to be conducted.


Not true.
A study was only recently published about this.
PDF here:  http://www.defenddemocracy.org/content/uploads/documents/MEMO_Bitcoin_Laundering.pdf

It was found that less than 1% of bitcoin transactions were for laundering money.


----------



## odyssey06 (31 Jan 2018)

If a lot of the use is for this purpose ... where is the evidence for this statement??? Was any asked for or presented or is the guvnors word enough these days?


----------



## jman0war (31 Jan 2018)

Sunny said:


> It's not the same thing. Laundering cash requires huge effort. Even physically moving or storing large amounts of cash is difficult. Laundering bitcoin and other crypto currencies is not as easy as people think but it is still much more ideal for laundering and illegal transactions than cash. That's just the reality. Doesn't make them the tool of the devil but it does mean that authorities are right to be concerned.


I disagree.
Laundering cash from proceeds of illegal activity has been occurring for what, centuries?
There are only a  small number of on and off ramps where bitcoin can be exchanged for fiat currency.
Maybe with the exception of Localbitcoins, but as a vehicle to launder money it would be erratic.

Mexican cartels use Banks that are beholden to them, and legitimate businesses to launder money.

here:  https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...-cartels-rely-on-big-banks-to-launder-profits


> "Despite all of the efforts, banks are still vulnerable to money laundering and it's kind of an age-old thing," says Kieran Beer, editor of the news website of the Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists.
> 
> "The drug trade is overwhelming in terms of how that money finds paths—like water — to come into the global financial system."


----------



## Sunny (31 Jan 2018)

jman0war said:


> Not true.
> A study was only recently published about this.
> PDF here:  http://www.defenddemocracy.org/content/uploads/documents/MEMO_Bitcoin_Laundering.pdf
> 
> It was found that less than 1% of bitcoin transactions were for laundering money.



Not really. Nobody knows for sure.

From the study:

_Our data should not be interpreted to assess or estimate the full amount of illicit Bitcoin transactions which may have occurred on the Bitcoin blockchain. The actual volume of illicit Bitcoin transactions is almost surely to be significantly larger than represented in our sample._


----------



## TheBigShort (31 Jan 2018)

Sunny said:


> Not really. Nobody knows for sure.



Exactly, so it makes you wonder why so much ado about bitcoin in the first place? If nobody knows for sure, then considering its makt cap of around $171bn , the chances are that only a small percentage of that is for used for illicit purposes. Even at 10% that amounts to $17bn - this pales into insignificance into the total estimated value of money laundering outside bitcoin.

http://www.fatf-gafi.org/faq/moneylaundering/

_"The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) conducted a __study__ to determine the magnitude of illicit funds generated by drug trafficking and organised crimes and to investigate to what extent these funds are laundered.  The report estimates that in 2009, criminal proceeds amounted to 3.6% of global GDP, with 2.7%  (*or USD 1.6 trillion*) being laundered. 

This falls within the widely quoted estimate by the International Monetary Fund, who stated in 1998 that the aggregate size of money laundering in the world could be somewhere between two and five percent of the world’s gross domestic product.  Using 1998 statistics, these percentages would indicate that money laundering ranged between *USD 590 billion and USD 1.5 trillion*. At the time, the lower figure was roughly equivalent to the value of the total output of an economy the size of Spain."
_
*How is money laundered? 
*
_"In the initial - or placement - stage of money laundering, the launderer introduces his illegal profits into the financial system. This might be done by breaking up large amounts of cash into less conspicuous smaller sums that are then deposited directly into a bank account, or by purchasing a series of monetary instruments (cheques, money orders, etc.) that are then collected and deposited into accounts at another location.

After the funds have entered the financial system, the second – or layering – stage takes place. In this phase, the launderer engages in a series of conversions or movements of the funds to distance them from their source. The funds might be channelled through the purchase and sales of investment instruments, or the launderer might simply wire the funds through a series of accounts at various banks across the globe. This use of widely scattered accounts for laundering is especially prevalent in those jurisdictions that do not co-operate in anti-money laundering investigations. In some instances, the launderer might disguise the transfers as payments for goods or services, thus giving them a legitimate appearance.

Having successfully processed his criminal profits through the first two phases the launderer then moves them to the third stage – integration – in which the funds re-enter the legitimate economy. The launderer might choose to invest the funds into real estate, luxury assets, or business ventures." _

Banks, financial instruments, property, luxury assets, business ventures - its all in there. Yet, it may only be my perception, but there is a huge emphasis on bitcoin and crypto. Why?

The reality is, using bitcoin to launder money only really matters when bitcoin is converted back into cash. It is a drop in the ocean compared to other forms of money laundering.


----------



## Firefly (31 Jan 2018)

jman0war said:


> Why do i get the feeling that if one goes to their dealer and buy something illegal using cash that's one thing; but if they buy it using bitcoin then it's a much bigger deal?



I would imagine that the fraudulent transactions conducted with cash as a percentage of total cash transactions is a LOT less than the fraudulent transactions conducted with Bitcoin as a percentage of total Bitcoin transactions.


----------



## Firefly (31 Jan 2018)

jman0war said:


> Not true.
> A study was only recently published about this.
> PDF here:  http://www.defenddemocracy.org/content/uploads/documents/MEMO_Bitcoin_Laundering.pdf
> 
> It was found that less than 1% of bitcoin transactions were for laundering money.



Then why has Bitcoin become synonymous with money laundering and illegal trade?


----------



## odyssey06 (31 Jan 2018)

Firefly said:


> Then why has Bitcoin become synonymous with money laundering and illegal trade?



Has it?


----------



## jman0war (31 Jan 2018)

Firefly said:


> Then why has Bitcoin become synonymous with money laundering and illegal trade?


Vested interests using hype to protect their monopoly of power


----------



## tecate (31 Jan 2018)

Firefly said:


> Then why has Bitcoin become synonymous with money laundering and illegal trade?


It makes for good copy. Furthermore, the old guard (banksters) have every reason to smear it - so as to suppress it.  They've been doing that for 9 years now.  I recently gave the example of the banks that have prevented customers from buying cryptocurrency with credit card - suggesting that it's to protect them from all sorts of evil ...when in fact, it's just to protect their own interests (otherwise, there's a  whole host of services that should not be possible to buy with a credit card).


----------



## Protocol (31 Jan 2018)

AFAIK, Bitcoin transactions are not anonymous, and can be traced.


----------



## Firefly (31 Jan 2018)

tecate said:


> Furthermore, the old guard (banksters) have every reason to smear it - so as to suppress it.



I agree with you there. But it looks like the governments are now gearing up to crack down on it too. And I can't blame them....after-all it's going to be a lot more difficult to collect much needed taxes to fund public services. Speaking of taxes... I note you made a large gain (and congrats on that). Would you mind outlining how you propose to make a tax return on this?


----------



## jman0war (31 Jan 2018)

Firefly said:


> I agree with you there. But it looks like the governments are now gearing up to crack down on it too. And I can't blame them....after-all it's going to be a lot more difficult to collect much needed taxes to fund public services. Speaking of taxes... I note you made a large gain (and congrats on that). Would you mind outlining how you propose to make a tax return on this?


From another point of view, can you explain what those public services and government regulation did to accomodate bitcoin and the cypto currency market where those gains were made?
In what jurisdiction did those gains occur?


----------



## Firefly (31 Jan 2018)

jman0war said:


> From another point of view, can you explain what those public services and government regulation did to accomodate bitcoin and the cypto currency market where those gains were made?
> In what jurisdiction did those gains occur?



I'm sorry, I don't understand your first question. Regarding the 2nd question, I think by its nature, it will be very difficult for any government to (a) identify any gains and (b) to attach a claim on those gains. Which leads me to think that wide scale adoption of Bitcoin could have serious repercussions for those in most in need of public services (and public sector workers).

I do find it ironic that I seem to be against Bitcoin but am in favour of an openly competitive market in the vast majority of cases, where government "gets out of the way". Bitcoin will only help in this regard, but I still think this is "wrong". Others who have a different viewpoint and are almost against the market are the very ones advocating the virtues of the most libertarian currency experiment I can think of!


----------



## tecate (31 Jan 2018)

Firefly said:


> I agree with you there. But it looks like the governments are now gearing up to crack down on it too. And I can't blame them


I had concerns about regulation and I guess I still do in certain instances.  The reason being that there's been a problem with the way that whole thing has been framed in the past few weeks, the language used, etc.  For the most part, it's the damned media and the way it's been spun off.  I would have concerns that certain government officials/politicians, etc. are taking a sledge to a nut approach to regulation.  However, so long as regulation doesn't stymie innovation - instead that it fosters innovation, then that's fine.  The Japanese have been the most progressive in this respect.  The whole South Korea thing has been blown out of all proportion.  At the end of it all, crypto hasn't been banned.  They just want to take the anonymity away.  Otherwise, it's business as usual.
I remember a BBC journalist interviewing Theresa May on the subject and he opened by saying something along the lines of ..."cryptocurrency - even the name of it infers something" [negative].  Eh - no it doesn't!  It's been smeared by prejudiced views.



Firefly said:


> after-all it's going to be a lot more difficult to collect much needed taxes to fund public services.


So if they have regulation at the on-ramp and off-ramp (via the exchanges), where's the problem?  I'm guessing that one cryptocurrency will operate outside of regulation and will cater for illicit activity in the future.  However, it's still going to be difficult for the stakeholders in that crypto to operate because of the point of weakness - where it's traded into and out of FIAT.




Firefly said:


> Would you mind outlining how you propose to make a tax return on this?


Talk to me when my tax return comes due.  By the way, you mentioned public services.  CGT was raised in 2008 - but not for public service needs - it was raised from 20 to 33% to pay for the god awful mess that the banks were in the thick of.  All the bankers attending Davos went on about the need to have hardline regulation for BTC - talk about the kettle calling the pot black - where was the regulation of that set back then?


----------



## TheBigShort (31 Jan 2018)

tecate said:


> Talk to me when my tax return comes due. By the way, you mentioned public services. CGT was raised in 2008 - but not for public service needs - it was raised from 20 to 33% to pay for the god awful mess that the banks were in the thick of. All the bankers attending Davos went on about the need to have hardline regulation for BTC - talk about the kettle calling the pot black - where was the regulation of that set back then?



This article was posted on RTE yesterday but gained little traction that I can see.

https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/...ffenders-why-banks-engage-in-illegal-conduct/

Basically outlines the value of fines attributed to banks over the last ten years for fraud and malpractice - €321bn, as distinct the value of the actual fraud itself. This is bigger than bitcoin itself and is only for where banks have been caught.
As we are finding out, the levels of fraud and types of malpractice are varied and continuously emerging all the time.


----------



## Sunny (1 Feb 2018)

jman0war said:


> Vested interests using hype to protect their monopoly of power





tecate said:


> It makes for good copy. Furthermore, the old guard (banksters) have every reason to smear it - so as to suppress it.  They've been doing that for 9 years now.  I recently gave the example of the banks that have prevented customers from buying cryptocurrency with credit card - suggesting that it's to protect them from all sorts of evil ...when in fact, it's just to protect their own interests (otherwise, there's a  whole host of services that should not be possible to buy with a credit card).



This type of conspiracy theory does more damage to the whole concept of crypto currencies than most mainstream media. Banks don't fear bitcoin. They have no reason to. Banks are interested in blockchain technology but despite it being around for 10 years, nobody has been able to use to create anything useful that I know about other than crypto currencies. And I still don't know how useful that is. Just because people have concerns doesn't mean they want the technology to fail. Of course there are scams and fraud in mainstream financial services despite regulations but that doesn't mean that regulators should stay away from crypto currencies. Read the story about Tether and Bitfinex to see how this so called non-manipulative currency can be manipulated. If that doesn't set alarm bells ringing, then there is no hope for people.


----------



## TheBigShort (1 Feb 2018)

Sunny said:


> Banks are interested in blockchain technology but despite it being around for 10 years, nobody has been able to use to create anything useful that I know about other than crypto currencies.



They sure are interested in blockchain technology. My guess as to why it has not been adopted wide scale by banking industry is that they cannot manipulate it in the way they can the current fiat system. 
From my reading of Tether, it is exactly the type of crypto the banks would love to adopt, but as its underlying structure is fundamentally flawed, it will be exposed and return to zero. 

The problem the banks have with bitcoin is that, if they were ever to adopt it, is that they would no longer be able to manipulate markets they way they can now. Hence, no uniform agreement in that sector to blockchain.


----------



## tecate (1 Feb 2018)

Sunny said:


> This type of conspiracy theory does more damage to the whole concept of crypto currencies than most mainstream media. Banks don't fear bitcoin.


It's not a conspiracy theory - it's confirmed.  The evidence is there to prove it in spades.  They are quite literally hostile to it.



Sunny said:


> Banks are interested in blockchain technology but despite it being around for 10 years, nobody has been able to use to create anything useful that I know about other than crypto currencies.


Well clearly there is something useful or else we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  There's an acceptance that there's a merit in the underlying technology.  However, this nonsense about blockchain = good, cryptocurrencies = evil - I don't buy.  They run with this as they want to maintain control in a totally centralised manner.  There's nothing altruistic in their approach here.

As regards nothing to show after 10 years, you're talking about something that was presented by some faceless geek as a whitepaper 9 years ago with the intention of disrupting one of the most fundamental aspects of society i.e. exchange of value.  It took 200 years to move from coin to paper; it took 40 years to move from paper to plastic.  It will be good going if we see a shift towards practical cryptocurrency use in 20.  Look back at the development of the internet.  How long did that take?  How useful was it to society in it's earlier phases?  That was the internet of information.  This potentially is the internet of value/money.



Sunny said:


> Just because people have concerns doesn't mean they want the technology to fail.


True of most but not the banks - we can agree to disagree on that.


Sunny said:


> Of course there are scams and fraud in mainstream financial services despite regulations but that doesn't mean that regulators should stay away from crypto currencies.


No - you're misinterpreting the point I was making.  I didn't say that I was averse to regulation.  I'm saying that I'm averse to regulation that will smother cryptocurrency innovation.  As regards 'despite regulations' - they were NOT being properly regulated in 2008 - so the point stands - pot calling kettle black.


Sunny said:


> Read the story about Tether and Bitfinex to see how this so called non-manipulative currency can be manipulated. If that doesn't set alarm bells ringing, then there is no hope for people.


I'm well aware of it - it's the no.1 reason I closed my position in cryptocurrency yesterday. Like I said, I'm not averse to regulation - just regulation that will smother the innovation of cryptocurrencies and applications that are in an evolutionary phase.
With regard to the jibe at the 'non-manipulative currency', bitcoin in and of itself primarily was not compromised here.  It was compromised by way of a centralised token/coin - that's been printing it's own money (still to be confirmed but it's looking ominous).  I mean that's never happened before - printing money to prop things up, has it? :-D


----------



## Leo (1 Feb 2018)

tecate said:


> I remember a BBC journalist interviewing Theresa May on the subject and he opened by saying something along the lines of ..."cryptocurrency - even the name of it infers something" [negative]. Eh - no it doesn't! It's been smeared by prejudiced views.



Well, in fairness the origin of 'crypto' is secret / hidden, so you can imagine a government or politician not seeing that as a good thing.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Feb 2018)

tecate said:


> However, this nonsense about blockchain = good, cryptocurrencies = evil - I don't buy.


I've been guilty myself and I am going to stop.

Blockchain is an exploitation of antisymmetric cryptography. This latter is a modest mathematical achievement which is in any case used by mainstream banking.  As to the potential utility of blockchain the examples I have read about would put it on a par, say, with the invention of the arch lever file.  To compare it with the internet is like comparing the paper darts I used to throw with a modern passenger airliner.

As to defamation of bitcoin as evil I subscribe to the old adage, and more recently as trumpeted by B/S,  that money is the root of all evil and it would be quite unfair to single out poor bitcoin; besides hardly anybody uses it as money.


----------



## tecate (1 Feb 2018)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> As to the potential utility of blockchain the examples I have read about would put it on a par, say, with the invention of the arch lever file.  To compare it with the internet is like comparing the paper darts I used to throw with a modern passenger airliner.



LINK .  That statement above is pure gold.  You should keep that for reference in years to come.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> besides hardly anybody uses it as money.


Yes, and you want to judge a developing technology in transition on it's status today.  You could have judged Arpanet in the same way back in the day.


----------



## TheBigShort (1 Feb 2018)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Blockchain is an exploitation of antisymmetric cryptography. This latter is a modest mathematical achievement which is in any case used by mainstream banking.



I'm not very good with maths outside the basic requirements but from reading the bitcoin whitepaper I would agree that it would not appear to hold any real significance in terms of mathematical output.

But then again, *E=mc^2 *, doesn't really have a jaw-dropping effect to it either does it?

Its the potential possibilities released in the mathematical equation is what is intriguing.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> As to the potential utility of blockchain the examples I have read about would put it on a par, say, with the invention of the arch lever file. To compare it with the internet is like comparing the paper darts I used to throw with a modern passenger airliner.



I hope this isn't your Krugman "internet/fax machine" moment.


----------



## Sunny (1 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> They sure are interested in blockchain technology. My guess as to why it has not been adopted wide scale by banking industry is that they cannot manipulate it in the way they can the current fiat system.
> From my reading of Tether, it is exactly the type of crypto the banks would love to adopt, but as its underlying structure is fundamentally flawed, it will be exposed and return to zero.
> 
> The problem the banks have with bitcoin is that, if they were ever to adopt it, is that they would no longer be able to manipulate markets they way they can now. Hence, no uniform agreement in that sector to blockchain.



Even that statement shows how bizarre this whole thing is. Why on earth would banks want something like Tether?? It is a company based in the British Virgin Islands that print money they claim is backed by actual USD cash reserves. It is nothing. Absolutely nothing. They won't even show where their reserves are held. They sacked their auditor. The printing of tether seems to be strongly correlated to the price of Bitcoin. More seems to be printed when the price falls so it appears as if it being used to prop up the price of Bitcoin which just happens to benefit Bitfinex who just happen to have a number of the same people in charge of both companies. That's if you can find out who is really in charge. And we are not talking about few million of USD here. We are talking hundreds of million. And people think Bitcoin can't be manipulated. 

Bitcoin and other crypto currencies could turn out to be the most amazing things ever invented. Blockchain technology might change the world like the internet has. But they could also turn out to be the latest version of the mini disk. Good luck to people who believe and put their money where their mouth but I think I would rather be sitting here in the future wishing I invested rather than wishing I didn't invest.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Feb 2018)

tecate said:


> LINK .  That statement above is pure gold.  You should keep that for reference in years to come.


Followed the link.  

Go into the offices of all those industries and every other industry and I'll bet you will find a raft of arch lever files. Arch lever files are very useful things.  Blockchain seems to have the potential usefulness of ALFs, I am not dismissing it.  But let's get some perspective here.  Being able to validate land ownership without wasteful document searches is hardly on a par with being able to travel anywhere in the world within a matter of hours.  

It was you yourself who characterised (rightly in my opinion) "blockchain good, crypto bad" as a nonsense.  My summary would be "blockchain modest, crypto irrelevant".  I think yours is "blockchain unbelievably marvelous, crypto a brilliant example".  Let's agree to disagree.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (1 Feb 2018)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> As to the potential utility of blockchain the examples I have read about would put it on a par, say, with the invention of the arch lever file. To compare it with the internet is like comparing the paper darts I used to throw with a modern passenger airliner.



Hi Duke

That is brilliant. I have to say that I have a lot of Lever Arch files. I love them.

_*History*
German Friedrich Soennecken invented ring binders in 1886 in Bonn, Germany. He also registered a patent on November 14, 1886, for his Papierlocher für Sammelmappen ("paper hole maker for folders", or hole punch). German Louis Leitz, founder of Leitz later made some important changes in development of ring binders in Stuttgart-Feuerbach. Leitz introduced the "finger hole" on the side of the binder to aid removal from crowded shelves.


The ISO standard two holes are 80 millimetres (3.1 in) apart, according to ISO 838. The four-hole version has no ISO standard. The distances between holes are 80 millimetres (3.1 in) (3×8)._

It's a pity that the internet was not available then to see how they were reviewed.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (1 Feb 2018)

140 have requested appeals documentation. (out of 1200 who have got the redress.)


----------



## TheBigShort (1 Feb 2018)

Sunny said:


> Why on earth would banks want something like Tether?? It is a company based in the British Virgin Islands that print money they claim is backed by actual USD cash reserves. It is nothing. Absolutely nothing. They won't even show where their reserves are held.



They have the Federal Reserve, they don't need tether, that's the point - the Federal reserve prints money out of nothing. Banks don't have the USD reserves to support their lending practices.



Sunny said:


> Bitcoin and other crypto currencies could turn out to be the most amazing things ever invented. Blockchain technology might change the world like the internet has. But they could also turn out to be the latest version of the mini disk. Good luck to people who believe and put their money where their mouth but I think I would rather be sitting here in the future wishing I invested rather than wishing I didn't invest.



You could be right, I would be of the view that I would rather live with the disappointment of losing money than live with the regret of not of having put my money up.

Having said that, to declare, my position in bitcoin is small, I have cashed out my stake with a small profit and reduced my holding to 60% of what I held before. I'm comfortable that if it all goes pop tomorrow, it will not adversely affect my standard of living nor if goes to $100,000 will be I be retiring anytime soon.


----------



## tecate (1 Feb 2018)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Blockchain seems to have the potential usefulness of ALFs, I am not dismissing it.  But let's get some perspective here.  Being able to validate land ownership without wasteful document searches is hardly on a par with being able to travel anywhere in the world within a matter of hours.


It's a strange analogy but I think you're misunderstanding that one specific example of the application of this technology.  Using public ledger technology for land registry is not just about doing away with 'wasteful document searches'.  If you think land registry is no big deal, tell that to those who have been the victims of Land Ownership Fraud and had to deal with title disputes.  It's a global issue.

Otherwise, I'll leave you both to rearrange your Lever Arch files.  :-D


----------



## Brendan Burgess (1 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I would be of the view that I would rather live with the disappointment of losing money than live with the regret of not of having put my money up.



That strikes me as odd.  I don't like losing money.   I don't really worry about what might have been. 

If I buy $100k worth of Bitcoin today and it crashes to zero, then I would be more than disappointed. I would be hurt. 

If I do nothing, and Bitcoin doubles from its current price and stays up, then I wouldn't worry too long  about what might have been.

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort (1 Feb 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> That strikes me as odd. I don't like losing money. I don't really worry about what might have been.
> 
> If I buy $100k worth of Bitcoin today and it crashes to zero, then I would be more than disappointed. I would be hurt.
> 
> If I do nothing, and Bitcoin doubles from its current price and stays up, then I wouldn't worry too long about what might have been.



Fair point Brendan. I should clarify.

I don't like losing money either. But I am prepared to invest/speculate/gamble on a number of things, like stocks, bitcoin and sports betting.

While I don't like losing money, I accept that the possibility is there and in turn I measure my stakes accordingly. I do this by acting on information that persuades me to consider the potential outcome and I place my stake accordingly on that outcome coming into fruition. Of course, I am wrong many times, but the only times I regret having put my money up is when I lose money following the advice/notions/tips of others rather than my own gut instinct.

My own gut instinct, based on lots of information, opinion (including your own) is that bitcoin is here to stay. Therefore, if I didn't have a stake in it and it does hang around, I would regret not having done so.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (1 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> My own gut instinct, based on lots of information, opinion (including your own) is that bitcoin is here to stay.



I presume you mean "despite lots of information"? 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort (1 Feb 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I presume you mean "despite lots of information"?
> 
> Brendan



Ha!Ha! nice one!


----------



## Firefly (1 Feb 2018)

tecate said:


> So if they have regulation at the on-ramp and off-ramp (via the exchanges), where's the problem?  I'm guessing that one cryptocurrency will operate outside of regulation and will cater for illicit activity in the future.  However, it's still going to be difficult for the stakeholders in that crypto to operate because of the point of weakness - where it's traded into and out of FIAT.



If someone accepts Bitcoin for payment, they could presumably (I'm not an export) transfer these Bitcoins between a number of exchanges that they use (probably under different names) and eventually cash out to FIAT. There would want to be a LOT of money at stake for Revenue to feasibly get warrants for each and every exchange and do all the trawling.


----------



## fpalb (1 Feb 2018)

Which is why the regulations are likely going to require exchanges to do KYC and only allow people to withdraw to bank accounts in their own names. In anticipation of such regulations the exchange I use already made me verify my ID and only allows me to withdraw cash to my own bank account.


----------



## jman0war (1 Feb 2018)

If someone is concerned about KYC regarding exchanges, they can always use LocalBitcoins.
LocalBitcoins would be the same method  as using things like Craigslist, DoneDeal or BuyAndSell and do in-person exchanges from one set of goods to Fiat.


----------



## tecate (1 Feb 2018)

@Sunny: NOBODY wants Tether if what we suspect they've done turns out to be true. However, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

@Firefly: There's a digital footprint left in the aftermath of what you describe (in the case of BTC).


----------



## Firefly (1 Feb 2018)

Say I agree to pay a builder 30k for a job and we agree to pay in Monero. I pay the builder and my end is complete as I am in no way responsible for the builder's tax affairs. The builder then transfers the coins between 6 different exchanges where he has accounts, all in different countries around the globe, in places like Panama, the Caymen Islands, Russia and the Phillipines. and finally back to the initial exchange (say Coinbase). The funds are then cashed for FIAT. If the builder is audited he can then say the funds FIAT came from his Coinbase account. If Revenue then want to trace the origin of these funds, how can they? And how would it be worth their while?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Feb 2018)

tecate said:


> It's a strange analogy...


Yes, but to read that link of yours you would think blockchain is the greatest invention since the wheel.  The fact is that it is a very low level technology on a par with Lever/Arch/Lever.  Nobody would be talking about it at all if it was not for its extremely flamboyant and controversial offspring, bitcoin.  So I was seeking to set in the light of really spectacular and life changing technologies like air travel, telecommunications, satellite TV, computers, the internet etc.

So in future when I assert that bitcoin is a complete illusion I am not going to add in the apologetic "but blockchain could be useful".


----------



## ant dee (1 Feb 2018)

Firefly said:


> If the builder is audited he can then say the funds FIAT came from his Coinbase account. If Revenue then want to trace the origin of these funds, how can they? And how would it be worth their while?



Seems like the Revenue cant go further back than Coinbase.
Revenue can ask the builder for his Coinbase statement. There you can see Monero deposits and selling of Monero for Euros. You cant see if they came from you mobile wallet or from Panama, no need for many hops around the globe.

Now the builder can say:

it was a gift?  CGT on full euro amount gained from the sale?
it was Monero he was holding for years? No buying receipt, so again CGT on the whole amount.
the truth? Income tax etc on the whole amount.
Its less tax (assuming high rate bands?) if the builder lies and tries to get away with CTG.
In the builder's case, surely a Revenue audit has a good chance to find out the truth, following the builder's business logs, supplier purchase receipts etc.


----------



## Firefly (1 Feb 2018)

ant dee said:


> Seems like the Revenue cant go further back than Coinbase.
> Revenue can ask the builder for his Coinbase statement. There you can see Monero deposits and selling of Monero for Euros. You cant see if they came from you mobile wallet or from Panama, no need for many hops around the globe.
> 
> Now the builder can say:
> ...



But what if the crypto becomes more widely used and the builder, instead of cashing out, goes ahead and buys things himself with these cryptos, like going on holidays. The money is thus never converted to FIAT by him at all. How is Revenue ever going to figure it all out?


----------



## ant dee (1 Feb 2018)

Firefly said:


> But what if the crypto becomes more widely used and the builder, instead of cashing out, goes ahead and buys things himself with these cryptos, like going on holidays. The money is thus never converted to FIAT by him at all. How is Revenue ever going to figure it all out?


Tax evasion?
Easier with cash is it not?


----------



## Firefly (1 Feb 2018)

ant dee said:


> Tax evasion?
> Easier with cash is it not?



For small amounts it is. But if someone wanted to evade tax with a larger amount, it could look attractive. Could someone use a web of exchanges in far flung jurisdictions and simply leave the crypto there?


----------



## odyssey06 (1 Feb 2018)

Firefly said:


> For small amounts it is. But if someone wanted to evade tax with a larger amount, it could look attractive. Could someone use a web of exchanges in far flung jurisdictions and simply leave the crypto there?



At some point it has to come back to earth though?


----------



## jman0war (1 Feb 2018)

Firefly said:


> If someone accepts Bitcoin for payment, they could presumably (I'm not an export) transfer these Bitcoins between a number of exchanges that they use (probably under different names) and eventually cash out to FIAT. There would want to be a LOT of money at stake for Revenue to feasibly get warrants for each and every exchange and do all the trawling.


That's revenues problem.
Look, technology has now moved beyond the conventional jursidictional regulatory and tax systems that our best and brightest civil servants have created.
That is not a problem for Bitcoin to solve.
If those regulators and tax authorities want to stay relevant, they'll have to adjust.


----------



## jman0war (1 Feb 2018)

Do you remember torrents and illegal downloads of movies, PirateBay etc?
The torrent protocol was distrupting a couple of particular industries.
Those industries appealed to authority to create and enforce coercive laws to protect their revenue.
They had some moderate success but didn't really stop the pirating as downloading still occurs today.

The real answer, was for those industries to adapt to the new landscape.
They started streaming services which gave people easier access to their product at a more reasonable price.
This captured some of that market away from torrents.


----------



## ant dee (1 Feb 2018)

Firefly said:


> Could someone use a web of exchanges in far flung jurisdictions and simply leave the crypto there?



You need a different approach regarding crypto and jurisdictions.
Crypto is on the network, existing everywhere at the same time, it never goes into jurisdictions.
The keys could travel, but they can also be duplicated, sent over SMS, uploaded on the internet. You can encrypt them, upload them, cross a border and download them.
Its the borderless property of the cryptos.

But, one could say to tax-evade with crypto, all you need is contacts to sell it for cash


----------



## tecate (1 Feb 2018)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yes, but to read that link of yours you would think blockchain is the greatest invention since the wheel.



Eh, whatever about the wheel, the tech is more significant than the Lever Arch File.


----------



## fpalb (1 Feb 2018)

It's not just crypto either. The internet being global is in many ways incompatible with legacy geographic borders, leading to regulatory arbitrage all over the place. Brendan or boards may fear people mentioning a topic here for fear of libel, but we can just have the same discussion on reddit and there's no risk. Media companies releasing media in certain geographic areas before others. Censorship of media. The Streisand effect. Companies like Apple claiming massive profits were 'earned' in Ireland despite very little of their actual work or sales occurring here. 

Things will just keep bumbling along... or everything will change.


----------



## jman0war (1 Feb 2018)

By the way, what about precious gems like diamonds?
They are a store of value that is easily transported.

Is exchanging precious gems to Fiat a difficult task, KYC and AML controls?
Does it take days to complete the transaction?


----------

