Actually I suppose the stats can be reconciled in a way.From my previous post:
"You're now trying to fudge it by comparing different research not knowing what parameters and definitions they used in an attempt to discredit."
This is what your banking set buddies at Swift stated in their report:
"“cases of laundering through cryptocurrencies remain relatively small compared to the volumes of cash laundered through traditional methods"
Ive provided link to the report so if you'd like to critique it, have at it.
How can they when you have no earthly idea what definitions of illicit use, fraud, etc. they ran with and what parameters were set? You're doing your best to bend and shape this to fit your narrative.Actually I suppose the stats can be reconciled in a way.
It was YOU who took the lesser measure (the cc fraud stat) and tried to suggest it was so much less than the illicit transactions stat - whilst trying to suggest to people that this was a reasonable comparison!So the vast bulk of this is not on money laundering, which you regard as harmless compared to credit card fraud
And there have been no bitcoin related fines. But sure isn't that the selling point. Bitcoin is decentralised and accountable to nobody.Your big banking friends have paid $330 billion in fines related to it since 2008. That's just related to what was detected - so its fair to say, a fraction has been detected.
I guess then that you're now conceding that the current system is a complete sham. You don't deny that big banking moves billions for the cartels and others. Do you want to explain to folks why in jurisdictions like ours, you can go to prison for not paying your TV license and yet in this HSBC fiasco, not one banking executive spent a minute behind bars?And there have been no bitcoin related fines. But sure isn't that the selling point. Bitcoin is decentralised and accountable to nobody.
And just what does the following mean?And just for the record - in no way do I deem money laundering to be harmless by comparison with credit card fraud.
By most people's moral compass stealing money, ransomware, human trafficking etc. are greater evils than concealing the proceeds and that is what you meant here and I agreed with you.tecate said:Credit card fraud is theft from each and every credit card holder.
Have you lost the run of yourself entirely, Duke? I don't remember getting into a discussion about what's the greater evil between crimes. This started out with a claim that bitcoin is being used almost exclusively for criminality when in-depth on-chain analysis has demonstrated it stands at no more than 1%. Furthermore, we have your banking buddies at SWIFT backing up the claim that illicit transactions on the bitcoin network are in the ha'penny place by comparison with cash. Ergo that claim has well and truly been debunked.By most people's moral compass stealing money, ransomware, human trafficking etc. are greater evils than concealing the proceeds and that is what you meant here and I agreed with you.
You now claim that you hold theft and concealing the proceeds to be on the same moral plain. You are ducking and diving and I don't like that except that it shows my forensic analysis of your stats has you squirming.
Are you suggesting that the uptick in the price of bitcoin over the course of the past few months is accounted for by cybercrime?
That certain wallets belonging to hackers have increased funds in them is a long way from providing any credible evidence that this is the primary activity on the network as a whole. What specific analysis did he cite?
Well, if either of us were in the ransomware business, I can't imagine either of us would give a fiddlers what the price of bitcoin is? If the scammers are looking for $5 million in bitcoin, then they end up with the equivalent amount in bitcoin based on whatever the price is at a given time.No, he was suggesting that the high value of Bitcoin, and the relative ease with which it can be "hidden" from the authorities, had reached a level whereby the price of Bitcoin was incentivising more cybercrime. I never said he said it was the primary activity on the network as a whole but it is clearly a fairly significant problem.
No, he was suggesting that the high value of Bitcoin, and the relative ease with which it can be "hidden" from the authorities, had reached a level whereby the price of Bitcoin was incentivising more cybercrime.
Still trying to prove black is white, your Dukeness? What you're going on with here is irrelevant because your jumbling up numbers and stats taken from different studies - not knowing what specific parameters each study set. I'm not buying what you're selling.@tecate your stats supplemented by UN stats indicate that $2.5bn p.a. topside is laundered through bitcoin. Heck I wouldn’t begrudge them that. The remaining illicit $297.5bn per Chainanalysis is spent on what? Human trafficking? Drugs trafficking? Ransomware?
Hi @tecate appreciate you taking the time to come back and so fully address my post. My apologies I didn't have time today to come back and give it the full answer it deserves (i was v busy earning useless fiatWhilst I'm quite happy to adjust my view as things progress, somehow I doubt that.
The point is valid. I'm not in favour of kneejerk reactions - throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The same 'logic' was pushed about before the internet reached critical mass - the call back then was that it was the tool of pedo's and criminals and was of little use to society. Articles were published saying that the internet was a load of hype. Someone or other once said that it would have the impact of the fax machine and nothing more. Apparently they give out Nobel Prizes for that sort of thing. You want - and actually expect - that the G7 is going to ban bitcoin on the basis of the HSE succumbing to a ransomware attack? How about the HSE sharpening itself up and improving its network security?
I haven't missed the nub of any such 'argument'. It's one that has been brought up here before and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If you disagree - fine - but that's not my view on the subject.
Bitcoin offers individuals the ability to self custody wealth, to store it and to transmit it digitally without an intermediary. You'd do well to acknowledge that as a basic improvement and another choice that people otherwise haven't had available to them. I haven't heard the 'blockchain not bitcoin' mantra for a couple of years. It's what the banking set tried to claim - they've long since given up on that. Explain to us please how 'blockchain' has potential yet bitcoin doesn't? Over a number of years there has been a theme here where people will not concede to recognise a single positive facet of what the bitcoin network brings to the table. Blockchain technology as a whole has been advanced by the developer(s) behind bitcoin solving the double spend issue - but sure - lets give it credit for nothing. I draw my own conclusions from that.
As regards bitcoin not improving the lives of anyone you know - are you suggesting that this is the vital metric in determining the efficacy or otherwise of bitcoin? If bitcoin is so useless to society, why do people like civil liberties advocate Edward Snowden think it's a great advancement? When the US government leaned on visa/mastercard to prevent Wikileaks from receiving donations from the general public, the organisation turned to bitcoin - as it's one opportunity to continue to fund the organisation.
Why are people like Alex Gladstein of the Human Rights Foundation such proponents of bitcoin in terms of its value to society going forward?
In a tweet and accompanying article earlier this week, Gladstein spelled out precisely why your metric (i.e. none of my friends have had their lives improved as a result of bitcoin ) is flawed:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1392510479541563395
That doesn't prove anything. And of those that don't use it for such a purpose today, that in no way means that this is the case as we progress. Secondly, you're running with either the convenience or misunderstanding that if it doesn't do what you expect of it today, then that's it - we write it off. I couldn't disagree with that view more. What if we applied that logic to the development of the internet, its origins going back to the development of ARPANET in the late sixties. Lets say you passed judgement on it when it had scaling issues at the dial-up internet stage? You may be prepared to pass judgement on it today but I certainly won't do that.
The ability to pay for things with it firstly is still developing. You realise that we were all born into a world that already had fiat money - and accompanying systems and financial infrastructure in place from the get go? Further still that unlike bitcoin, use of those currencies is insisted on by force? With that backdrop, you think that with the flick of a switch, the ability to pay with bitcoin for anything can happen just like that? The internet faced scaling issues and overcame them. I believe bitcoin will also (not on the base layer but on layers built on top of the bitcoin network). But you want to write it off today because your peer group thinks its a load of rubbish - good luck with that but it's not an opinion I share.
Whilst neo-banks like Revolut are proving to be incredibly popular, the vast majority of people transfer funds via their bank account - for which there are banking fees.
On Revolut, sure you can but if all Revolut customers utilised the service without an ATM card, they'd have to start charging fees. The vast majority of people use the service with an accompanying ATM card - and you pay €30 stamp duty on that per year for starters. You chose transferring money to friends as your example rather than paying for goods and services with Revolut - a process through which they make money on - and said process builds in the cost into the price of the item you're buying already - ergo such a transaction isn't free. If you withdraw funds from an ATM via Revolut, you'll also pay fees at a certain point. If you do so abroad, you'll incur FX fees and local bank transaction fees.
So against a very specific example, you contrast that with Coinbase fees in particular? I have a Coinbase account that I don't use because I don't like their high fees or their customer service. Their high fees are well known - which it seems is why you use that specific example. You could use the example of switching up from a regular Coinbase account to Coinbase Pro where the fees are lesser. You could take it a step further and use Binance where fees can be as low as 0.02%. In an industry that's only getting started, it's not so unusual to have higher fees to begin with. There will always be downward pressure as such markets expand. The documents that accompanied the Coinbase direct listing acknowledged that downward pressure on fees going forward.
But lets not do any of those things. I can transfer bitcoin to my friends from my Breez Wallet to their Breez Wallet for a fraction of a cent regardless of what jurisdiction they're in or where they are in the world. That already makes it cheaper than Revolut. Furthermore, I or they don't necessarily have to have an associated bank account or complete/submit paperwork, etc. Added to that, there are plenty of jurisdictions where Revolut or the likes of it simply isn't available.
Bitcoin in its current form as a base settlement layer - without any further development - can match the capacity of Fedwire. Lightning network - running on top of the bitcoin base layer - can match the visa/mastercard network in terms of thru-put - with significant savings to be made for vendors/consumers over visa/mastercard.
All the while you are assuming that in every part of the world, its hunky dory to have an intermediary involved. I guess that's because you're using your peer group as a metric of bitcoins efficacy. There are many parts of the world where this is a major issue. You're also assuming that neo-banks or even bank accounts are available to everyone - they're not. I live in a country where it's incredibly difficult to get a visa/mastercard or any form of card that will work internationally. That's the norm in said country. That country also mismanages its currency and enforces unruly capital controls. I managed to extract my funds thanks to crypto - just before the currency managed to nosedive in valuation over and above all the other fiat currencies (there's a lot of competition right now in the race to the bottom).
As regards the low energy consumption, that is a complete and utter falsehood. And just to head this off before you come back on this, Visa or Revolut are not base layers. They don't get to exist without all the rest of the banking and currency infrastructure. Bitcoin is a base settlement layer and an entire monetary system in its own right.
It does no such thing. The removal of intermediaries is an advancement. It decreases settlement risk and third party custodian risk. It prevents governments from taking a haircut to your hard earned savings or in many jurisdictions, simply confiscating your funds. It prevents banks disposing of your life savings - of which there are many examples. And by the way, whilst you're so comfy back in Ireland, we came within a hairs breath of the very same thing. That sort of event only has to happen once!
It can act against the stealth tax that is imposed on citizens worldwide via inflating fiat currencies...or in cases of countries that have totally mismanaged their currency to the point where they've destroyed the local currency. Pick from a list of examples in any given year.
Because your peer group told you so? That's a complete falsehood - as I've set out above. Read Gladstein's tweet and accompanying article. Pay heed to the fact that it is wayward to pass judgement on an innovation that has yet to mature.
Cash is the currency of choice of criminals - hands down. Credit card fraud is rampant - the bill for it in the US alone comes to around $6 billion per year. Meanwhile, banks have paid out $330 billion in fines related to fraud and market manipulation since 2008. They still carry on with facilitating money laundering at the highest level because they're only paying cents on the dollar in fines - it's still very much worth their while.
No it doesn't. See above. If you're talking micro-transactions, bitcoin can be transacted via the lightning network for fractions of a cent. That makes it cheaper than fiat.
When it comes to larger international transactions, then transactions on the bitcoin base settlement layer are more cost effective than moving fiat. And if we want to get in to very large sums, then its more cost effective again. It also allows for direct settlement with no counterparty risk. Have you ever carried out an international wire transfer? How much did it cost and how long did it take?
See above - via layer 2, yes it can match visa/mastercard throughput.
It is volatile because it has yet to mature as an asset. As a store of value over the longer term, its proven to be an excellent store of value. If you're presenting with a low time preference right now, sure - it could have shorter term issues as a store of value. However, you've opened on the payments angle. If you're going to go into store of value use case and comparisons with gold, then we'll have to go through everything - not just certain points that you pick out because bitcoin has several advantages over gold and its going to pull market cap away from it on that basis.
Once it matures, I expect it to be just as boring as gold in this respect. You should also note that in its not too distant past, gold also presented as being just as volatile yet nobody seems to mind.
Absolute rubbish. Others before you have presented with this and it doesn't wash. Firstly of the gazillions of projects, very few of them have anything to do with store of value / currency use case. Beyond that, go out and do it then. Go out and start letitroll-coin and see how far you will get. You realise that bitcoin is a trillion dollar asset? You can ignore network effect all day long but I certainly have no intention of doing so.
As regards Doge, it was started as a meme - not for use as a currency or store of value. Even if it gains some traction for payments it in no way detracts from bitcoin. I'm open to bitcoin still being usurped but at this stage, it can only be by something that is 10x better than it - not something that may have the upper hand on one single characteristic whilst failing the others.
See above. Analogue cash and digital cash are used for the vast majority of crime and fraud. There's nothing that you can say to refute that.
So tell me - how is it that at a high level the banking system caters for money laundering? Explain to me how cash is used extensively in the narcotics trade? How is it that we all have to cover the billions in costs when it comes to credit card fraud?
Please let me know if I've left any point unaddressed. I'm still keen to understand how bitcoin threatens 100% of GDP but even more fascinated to hear how crypto threatens lives! Can you expand on that please?
Over the course of nearly 4 years here, I've made no secret of the fact that I've held bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. My views have been consistent over that time period. Please note that over that duration, I also didn't hold crypto/bitcoin for extended periods. If you're suggesting what I think you are, then would I not talk down the market during these times?
What you should note is that if I was thinking of myself, I should be actively encouraging what I consider to be wayward beliefs as regard bitcoin. So long as there are objectors, they serve to lengthen the adoption process. A lengthening of the adoption / maturation process means more volatility and more opportunity from a speculative point of view.
Now my turn. If there is some assumption that anyone presenting here who doesn't hold bitcoin and thinks that its just plain wrong has clean hands in these discussions, I don't agree. For many, the notion of bitcoin goes against their world view and they're against it from a political point of view or they dislike the great unwashed who brought it to the fore or that it challenges an inequitable financial system - inequitable for many yet one that they are quite happy with in that they have learned to navigate it better than most or are in a privileged position to do so.
I've long since clarified that I accept that bitcoin still has the potential to fail. As its network effect expands, that likelihood lessens but I still recognise it as a possible outcome.
Good for you - and just so that there's no misunderstanding, I've never suggested it was useless - like most things, it comes with its advantages and disadvantages.i was v busy earning useless fiat
At this point - between people who are working in the sector and those who take a close interest in it - we're talking about a hell of a lot of people - and a broad spectrum of people. Sure, there are those who's interest doesn't extend beyond a speculative punt. However, the sector has attracted a hell of a lot of talent who have walked away from careers in conventional financial services and other disciplines to work on what they see as an innovation which will have considerable impact once it fully unfolds. Therefore, if your figure is 1%, I'd say you need to change up the locations in which you are engaging with people on the topic because I don't find that in any way representative of folks who engage intelligently on this subject.letitroll said:Your are part of the 1% of bitcoin loyalists who are willing to try and engage on the basis of logic.
If that's your experience, I guess that's your experience. However, be aware that exactly the same is evident in many who take the opposite view - and enter the discussion with some deep seated political views on the subject. It very much cuts both ways.letitroll said:Broadly I see emotional responses from the bitcoin community - that has all the hallmarks of a religious fever at best
As above, perhaps you need to choose a better forum in which you engage with those who have an interest in decentralised blockchain/crypto. On the flip side, there are so many mistruths that are bandied about relative to bitcoin and decentralised crypto, many feel a need to set that straight. There's very much two sides to everything.letitroll said:and at worst the zeal of a bunch of multi-level marketers attempting to recruit more participants implicitly or explicitly knowing the very value of the thing they hold will increase the more people they 'get on board'.
I don't think I've missed the nuance of what you were getting at - I simply disagree with it entirely. There's little point rehashing it - I've set out in my previous response some progress that bitcoin has made in terms of its contribution as a societal good and why the metric you applied (a quorum of your Irish peer group) isn't appropriate. I've also addressed the fact that like the development and roll-out of many technologies and innovations, it's a case of slow at first, then all at once. Anyone that passes summary judgement on an innovation that is still in development is doing so in error.letitroll said:My very quick response is that you may slightly have missed the nuance I was getting at..........whatever incremental improvement Bitcoin itself and itself only has brought to society (not talking blockchain here) is not ably covered by the downsides it has created......being its superiority over cash/bank wires as a medium of exchange for extortionists and kidnappers.
I'm unaware as to what extent you've been following discussions here, but all of this has been acknowledged. My view is that systems evolve continually. The advent of decentralised cryptocurrency forms part of that evolution. Additionally, you should note that the vast majority of people in crypto circles foresee a situation where people are given choice. That is to say, citizens have the option of using sovereign currency, private digital and decentralised digital currency. You cite a positive evolution with regard to banking and money - and I agree. However, that doesn't mean that it's not without its flaws and failings and that we shouldn't strive to seek ways to address those failings.letitroll said:The invention of money and the international banking system is an incremental technology/improvement that has been immense in improving the lot of human civilisation.....lest you forget the last 150 years aided by fiat money and fractional reserve banking (AND lots of other things of course) has seen the greatest progress in aggregate of human living conditions witnessed since records began.
Agreed - albeit that plenty of people around the world would find it hard to see it that way (i'm thinking in terms of current examples - your average Venezuelan or Lebanese - and numerous others who have had their life savings vapourised courtesy of the flaws of the existing system).letitroll said:Cash & Banking are used for BAD and enable BAD things but in aggregate we are better off for their invention & existence (see above)
The first part of that statement, I've tackled in my previous response to you....suffice it to say that in no way are we in agreement - so we can park it up on a agree to disagree basis. On the second part, isn't it wonderful that the HSE has a scapegoat for their incompetence. I'd be far more inclined to take an entirely different view on this subject. Ransomware has been knocking about for a quite a while. All organisations and individuals are potential victims. Larger organisations represent a larger prize. However, the expectation is that large organisations are professional and that they manage their network security accordingly. It didn't in any way surprise me that one of the most mismanaged organisations in the country succumbed to a network security breach. But - you say (and I'm very much sure they say!!) - it's bitcoin's fault. That's convenient for them.letitroll said:Bitcoin, to date, fails to demonstrate enough incremental beneficial improvement OVER fiat cash/banking to lets call them ordinary people to outweigh the societal costs that come from creating a decentralized, anonymous store of value thats so useful to extortionists that its currently the medium of exchange in an extortion attempt that is crippling Ireland's health system.
This statement is wayward in the extreme. Bitcoin is a tool - no more, no less. Like you have acknowledged with cash, banking, etc. - it can be used for good and for bad. The stakeholders who are responsible are the purpetrators of this extortion and HSE management who have failed to secure their network. But of course it's the easiest thing in the world to blame bitcoin - as it's something new that the general public still don't understand and its perfect for the HSE to deflect away from their incompetence. Better yet, it's a decentralised protocol - there is no bitcoin HQ or bitcoin CEO - so its the easiest thing in the world for them to lay the blame on it.letitroll said:99.9% of people currently engaging with that health system right now I can safely estimate have seen not single improvement in their lives because of the invention of bitcoin 13 years ago.
I think I've set out exactly what I believe is at issue. I live in a developing nation with a history of rampant corruption and high levels of poverty. And yet I've never seen someone lying in a trolley in a hospital corridor. The issues here are human error and mismanagement - which is interesting because it's also what fails fiat-based monetary systems the world over.letitroll said:This is the first European country in history I believe having its medical system completely brought to its knees by remote hackers demanding a bitcoin ransom. Do you not see a correlation and causation there?
This is something that has been a perennial topic since way back. Governments have banned bitcoin and then reversed such decisions or u-turned by turning a blind eye. When it comes to governments, incompetence knows no bounds - so of course it wouldn't surprise me in the least if such a decision was taken. If a hard line is taken, then it won't be for the reason that you mention. The G7 banning bitcoin won't in any way shape or form prevent ransomware attackers from utilising bitcoin. Quite the opposite. However, there always remain other reasons why they might go down this road. The outcome is not as clear as you would think. In the US, they would face a backlash. Wall Street are now involved - and if those guys get their fingers burnt, there will be blowback. There's also likely to be general political blowback. You may think, that couldn't possibly be - we're talking about a tiny group. However, decentralised crypto taps into the mentality of a large tract of America. There is an ever growing number of US politicians who are vocal in their support of bitcoin and decentralised blockchain.letitroll said:My bet in the next 12 months is that the G7 has come to same conclusion as me and will stomp out this backwater and aim to choke off crypto from what it really needs which is access to the Fiat banking system for its on/off ramps. Let revisit in a year........I think the G7 agrees with me, not you and their actions over the next 12 months will clearly demonstrate that.
Think recently Stanley Druckenmiller pointed out that it would be highly unusual for a first of its kind of anything to come to dominate a nascent technology space.......he pointed out that Facebook was the 11th social network..........Google the 4th or 5th search engine.
BTC is possibly the AltaVista in waiting of the crypto world (for those that don't know what AltaVista was...... Google it)
@WolfeTone.......but could only jokingly ridicule, a sign that perhaps my points have merit & stung somewhat?
Im of the view that the truth lies somewhere in-between.
Stanley Druckenmiller pointed out that it would be highly unusual for a first of its kind of anything to come to dominate a nascent technology space
My advice to you is to get out of Dodge, quick. I now understand your emotional antipathy to fiat and I must remember in future to be more tolerant of the circumstances you find yourself in.fiat isn't a thing of choice - it's use is enforced down the barrel of a gun.
I guess all of these things only become real in the Duchy of Marmalade if they come from an approved Duke of Marmalade source rather than from one of the great unwashed so here goes:My advice to you is to get out of Dodge, quick. I now understand your emotional antipathy to fiat and I must remember in future to be more tolerant of the circumstances you find yourself in.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?