Read on Twitter
Those working at surveillance companies think;
- Chain Analysis increases adoption
- Compliance has legitimised bitcoin
- They don't Link Transactions <-> Users
- Users can just mix to regain financial privacy
- Chain Analysis increases adoption
- Compliance has legitimised bitcoin
- They don't Link Transactions <-> Users
- Users can just mix to regain financial privacy
There is a complete disconnect between ( @PeterMcCormack & @gladstein) and @tomrobin
It's fascinating to watch.
It's fascinating to watch.
1 - Chain Analysis increases adoption
Tom claims that without the deep liquidity pools of regulated exchanges bitcoin would not have the legitimacy it has, nor would it have been able to reach the masses (because without regulated exchanges it would be very difficult to buy).
Tom claims that without the deep liquidity pools of regulated exchanges bitcoin would not have the legitimacy it has, nor would it have been able to reach the masses (because without regulated exchanges it would be very difficult to buy).
Tom was involved with Satoshi Square. He knows that people buy and sell bitcoin for cash, in person. He started a company which was unable to get banking approval (because of fraud risk) which is why elliptic was created.
It's not that he doesn't know that non KYC methods exist
It's not that he doesn't know that non KYC methods exist
Rather, it seems that he thinks the existing regulations require KYC in order to use the fiat rails, and that without the fiat rails bitcoin will not be used by the masses. So his solution is to make it easier for regulated bitcoin exchanges to exist, to widen bitcoin adoption.
THIS is the critical point of contention. @gladstein points out the bank secrecy act relates to amounts in excess of $10,000 whereas exchanges are KYC'ing users to buy ANY amount of bitcoin.
There are no laws requiring exchanges to KYC users who buy or sell modest amounts.
There are no laws requiring exchanges to KYC users who buy or sell modest amounts.
@Azteco_ is pushing forwards in developing and rolling out an alternate method of getting bitcoin into peoples hands WITHOUT requiring them to submit identification documents.
They let merchants sell azteco vouchers (like an itunes gift card or a mobile top up) which can be redeemed by the user for bitcoin.
This means that the merchant is not selling bitcoin and is therefore not required to identify the buyer.
This means that the merchant is not selling bitcoin and is therefore not required to identify the buyer.
2 - Compliance has legitimised bitcoin
Tom thinks that bitcoin has been legitimised by the bankers. (i.e. perception has been changed by creating an aurora of legitimacy). Presumably he mostly interacts with suits.
Tom thinks that bitcoin has been legitimised by the bankers. (i.e. perception has been changed by creating an aurora of legitimacy). Presumably he mostly interacts with suits.
Gladstein point out that bitcoin is legitimised by being a scarce & uncensorable digital cash (i.e. bitcoin has demonstrated legitimacy to anyone watching).
He fights to protect liberty & knows what bitcoin can do for those who most need it who don't have bank accounts, or ID
He fights to protect liberty & knows what bitcoin can do for those who most need it who don't have bank accounts, or ID
3 - They don't Link Transactions to Users
Tom said that elliptic don't link users to transactions or addresses. That law enforcement need to ask an exchange for address info or get the links another way (hack a laptop).
Tom said that elliptic don't link users to transactions or addresses. That law enforcement need to ask an exchange for address info or get the links another way (hack a laptop).
This ignores that they create identifiers (user8163591) which an exchange can then link to an identity trivially (basically yes, elliptic don't do this linking, but the exchanges can and do).
4 - Users can just mix to regain financial privacy
Yes, they can and should use privacy enhancing tools. However, Tom explicitly says that they will flag these coins because exchanges should treat it as walking into a bank with a bag of cash. He also points out most people won't
Yes, they can and should use privacy enhancing tools. However, Tom explicitly says that they will flag these coins because exchanges should treat it as walking into a bank with a bag of cash. He also points out most people won't
Gladstein points out that if most people don't then this does not really help.
Also, if people are blocked from changing bitcoin to cash then their ability to use bitcoin is limited.
Also, if people are blocked from changing bitcoin to cash then their ability to use bitcoin is limited.
What I'd add is that making it hard to go from bitcoin to cash quickly will limit adoption - people can tolerate holding a greater % of their wealth in bitcoin if it can be quickly changed to fiat to meet unexpected fiat expenses.
