GNU Taler – Payment system for privacy-friendly, fast, easy online transactions
taler.net
taler.net
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26261314 (346 points/111 comments)
Also:
5 months ago - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28301172 (47 points/9 comments)
4 years ago – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15274110 (479 points/149 comments)
6 years ago – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11840453 (276 points/192 comments)
That seems like a very peculiar definition of privacy.
To add to this, I think it might be better if the protocol was private by default but allow the sender to choose the level of disclosure and the recipient to publish (as part of the address?) what levels are required (so a sender can’t submit a payment whose disclosure level doesn’t match the policy set by the recipient - the transaction just wouldn’t happen as the miners would enforce this and reject the TX).
That would allow the protocol to be flexible to accommodate different use-cases depending on the jurisdiction the payment falls under and allow recipients to be compliant (as the protocol implicitly rejects transactions that don’t match the recipient’s chosen policy). The same protocol can thus be used across many different jurisdictions and anti-money-laundering regulations.
I wish I was making this up... https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/inside-israel-s-decision...
In the other, being able to hide transactions from authorities will quickly erode the democracy you have.
Whether complete financial anonymity is a net positive or negative is likely context dependent.
I edited my comment above to suggest a configurable level of disclosure which the sender & recipient can enforce, so that way the same protocol can support both traceable and anonymous payments depending on the desired use-case and local laws.
The “taxable and disclosure” part is mostly ensuring that all the money earned by a merchant goes back to a real bank account. Where tax authorities should already have checks and balances in place for taxation purposes.
It's sort of how the right to keep and bear arms does imply freedom from government overreach. Privacy rights are similar. They can be used to do things contrary to the desires of the state, if the end user wishes, but having transactional privacy no more means one will be evading taxes than having a rifle means one will be murdering government employees as a revolutionary, though in both cases the option is there.
You have no such freedom, and indeed no such is possible, unless you have correctly classified police as non-people.
The state always has guns, and the state is comprised of people. There is no world where "zero people have guns", ever, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim such. It takes people with guns to enforce a ban on private gun ownership.
Ultimately the debate is solely around which people have guns. Four legs bad.
Except gas fees, of course.
One of the easiest ways of doing money laundering is using businesses that can get away with large amounts of anonymous income without proportionally large production or purchase costs, and then buy your own products and services with ill-gotten money to produce a legitimate-looking revenue stream.
"Just" having to pay tax on the income is hardly a major barrier to using it for money laundering.
There has been some development of federated chaumian mints, such that the required trust is split over multiple parties. This is possible with Bitcoin, and it would make sense as a scalability and privacy solution. See: https://fedimint.org
Edit: its an anonymous check
[0]: https://mullvad.net/en/help/no-logging-data-policy/#numbered
edit: add mullvad link. correct typo.
Sadly, while the project even seems attractive to states, I think they killed it before it could become reality by choosing a GPL licence.
Probably nobody will touch it...
PS: it's not like I have a problem with it, but mostly it's reality
PPS: move to GitHub or alternatives, please - accessibility right now doesn't seem great
I hope it works out in the end anyways ...
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Does the project not actually exist? It seems like it is real and has been under development for some years now....
Banks are notoriously slow on the uptake of tech projects, it might take some internal pushing from people who care to adopt a FOSS solution. Most business I've run into prefer proprietary projects because its easier to just throw money at something, although they could throw money at their internal team to implement FOSS. Unsure if it would be more expensive in this case, I'm not very familiar with fintech
Central Banks are not known for speedily approving such proposals.