2) It's believed that 68% of all ethereum transaction value is controlled by just one system - https://blog.cyber.fund/huge-ethereum-mixer-6cf98680ee6c - A large number of ethereum transactions are just mixing coins to hide ownership.
I'm not aware of other fully-public blockchains that have comparably high levels, though maybe I'm missing something. With permissioned chains it's much easier to reach high throughput.
The so-called mixer has been debunked here before. It actually looks like exchanges, and the temporary addresses they generate for deposits. That does mean that a large portion of transactions are with exchanges, but that shouldn't surprise anyone, and would be the same on Bitcoin.
The selection of protocols is indeed quite selective.
Disclaimer: I work on IOTA.
Are we anywhere near close enough to get rid of the centralization?
I’m really excited about the project
As for the other question: once the network is more - next year?
but the title says "Ethereum Now Handles More Transactions Than All Digital Currencies Combined". note "Digital Currencies", not "blockchain currencies".
The construction of the network/consensus protocol means that Ripple would have to get a majority of all validators on the majority of everyone's UNLs to lie to reverse a transaction. Ripple likely does not have such influence /or/ if they do, then you are free to select a larger UNL set, along with the rest of the community, such that they /do not/.
Which?
And the transactions in Steemit at least are generally very low value, with 1-cent upvotes and article/comment entries making up the bulk of them. In comparison, the average value of an Ethereum transaction is $10,000.
The value of the transactions may differ, but at least the Steem transactions are more likely to be 'real', that is to say they are transferring value from one person to another. See my earlier comment about how a large proportion of ethereum 'value' is merely shuffling coins between different wallets of the same owners.
In any case, the end result is the same. There's a large amplification factor in ethereum transactions, since many transactions are just the shuffling of coins without any value actually changing hands.
(However, the story isn't crystal clear about what they mean by the 'rotation' of transactions. It says 'rotated 80 times' but I'm not sure if that means each input address goes through 80 transactions before going to an output.)
Isn't that the definition of laundering?
As we see with the adoption of credit and debit cards, mobile billing, and things like ApplePay, most people don't mind having their transactions recorded. Indeed, for a lot of people it's a benefit; I avoid paying with cash so that I can easily use things like Mint to have a better understanding of my spending.
Criminals, on the other hand, strongly value secrecy over convenience, and tracking money is one of the best ways to keep crime in check. So unless you find some way to eliminate crime, being secretive about money flows will always put you in company with criminals.
IMHO, lack of anti-crime controls was one of Bitcoin's biggest early mistakes. It was much worse for, say, buying a book online. But it was much better for crime, including digital extortion and fraud. It quickly picked up a taint that it's never really been able to shake. Let that be a lesson to startup founders everywhere: your early adopters can easily define your company.
What about people who pay with cash? I know people who use cash for privacy reasons but society doesn't treat them like criminals.
Even under that level, though, some level of suspicion attaches to large wads of cash. I've had vendors ask for cash payment for things in the $1-5k range, and it was pretty clear to me that they had tax evasion in mind.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report
It matters what is being kept secret from whom. I don't tell the general public about my finances. I do accurately tell the tax authorities what I am required to disclose, and I can back that up by accounting for all (material) transactions that I have made. This is what distinguishes me from money launderers.
It's perfectly reasonable to attempt to hide in a public blockchain while simultaneously maintaining private records and making the appropriate declarations to the authorities.
As you're not an authority, you will never see the legal side of it. But that doesn't put anyone in the company of criminals any more than the fact that you don't publish your finances online puts you in the company of criminals.
> It was much worse for, say, buying a book online. But it was much better for crime, including digital extortion and fraud. It quickly picked up a taint that it's never really been able to shake.
I would argue that it is the most useful cryptocurrency that attracts legitimate and criminal users alike. It's not a "taint" caused by a consequence of some criminal-friendly design. Any higher level of criminality is a direct consequence of being the most used cryptocurrency. If something else takes over, then the criminals will switch too.
The most useful cryptocurrency is not as broadly useful as other means of moving money around. So if it has advantages for criminals, criminals will use it disproportionately. Ransomware generally doesn't take Visa and Mastercard. The Silk Road was Bitcoin's most prominent early adopter. And the early Bitcoin market was also rife with scams, fraud, Ponzi schemes, and all manner of other criminal idiocy: https://www.amazon.com/Attack-50-Foot-Blockchain-Contracts-e...
Elimination of privacy is not an "anti-crime control".
Much of cryptocurrency's value comes from the privacy it gives its users.
"Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity—"
This might be tax evasion if you hide it from the IRS, but that's not laundering.
IANAL, of course.