coindesk is a blog, not an exchange.
There is a limit here, because there are not that many cryptocurrency transactions. So each transaction chain must be small, or the number of chains must be small. Anyway, the restrictions on international investigations are probably a much larger issue than any splitting and washing that one can effectively do.
[1]: relatively famous for aiding and abetting money laundering on a large scale.
ref: https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-...
But a large chunk of Bitcoin’s 2020 wealth comes from it being a speculative instrument - as your comment indicates! I hope this dies down eventually but obviously Bitcoin is objectively high-risk. We are still in the first year of a serious recession, and significant political turbulence, and a pandemic. It’s not irrational to put that money into dollars / euros / etc.
Investors who understand Bitcoin's potential do it an indispensable service. They inform the public (through price information) of that which most of the public is unable or unwilling to figure out on their own: that Bitcoin has tremendous potential to change the world and warrants serious attention, both currently for certain people as a hideable, unconfiscateable, transportable, no-third-party-risk store of wealth and in the future for everyone as a transactional currency (and as the cornerstone of the financial internet).
I personally accept is as payment, and therefore consider it a currency. Why would I want to buy things with it today when I can use ever inflating dollars for that?
Bitcoin is a fine technology and a fine thing to put part of your wealth into, especially if you support the tech and want to use it to buy things or invest. It’s also brand new, it’s price / USD or euro is obviously unstable, and there’s a global pandemic-depression! It’s just short-sighted (and intellectually dishonest) to say Bitcoin is low-risk and “hard currency” because it’s protected against inflation.
Agree to disagree. I would say you're the one twisting the definition of "hard currency" (Wikipedia is not the source of all truth).
"Hard money" originally reffered to gold. When paper currency took over the term "hard currency" was used to distinguish between good and bad paper currencies.
I maintain that the "hard" part (which derives from gold) refers to the inability to be inflated easily. But I'm happy to concede that Bitcoin is not a currency yet in most peoples' eyes. I'm happy to switch to calling it a hard money.
BTC is inarguably NOT "widely accepted around the world as a form of payment for goods and services". I'm very sorry to break it to you.
Low volume ways would be to use the bitcoin to purchase drugs or other illegal goods by the kilo and sell the drugs the usual way.
It's unlikely that the person needs to full billion immediately. Five or ten million a year could be enough for many people and at that kind of level exchanging for monero could work.
There is also the option of sending small amounts to thousands of real people's bitcoin wallets (and lots more to wallets you control) and letting those people deal with the FBI first.
- slowly buy bitcoins on exchanges over several years
- destroy the wallet with 1B publicly ( I assume here it is possible. I heard of possibility to transfer to reserved/impossible wallets )
- wait a bit for the exchange rate to go up
- sell your previously bought bitcoins
- pay back the loan
Edit: OK, maybe $1B is too small for this scheme to work. But if the wallet would contain say 50% of all bitcoins this would be a possibility.
I also like how they say "no trust", but in reality, you have to trust them (and their entire supply chain).
Edit: from their FAQ: "Can I re-seal after breaking the seal? No. A permanent change is made inside the flash memory of the processor." Oof. Big oof.
there are trustless mixer networks[1]. The bigger problem is that you're going to run out of liquidity. You preferably want to exchange 1B of "dirty" bitcoin for 1B of "clean" bitcoin, not tumble the 1B of bitcoin and get back the same dirty coins.