Hacker News Reader

Comment by summm | Hacker News Reader

In addition to the huge advantage of not needing to get cash from an ATM and physically carry it to the card vendor: Transactions made on the same eGift card wallet are tied together. With Taler you have a wallet with coins you can spend separately, and which cannot be correlated, neither by your bank nor the merchant. What makes you believe anyone (except maybe the purchaser themselves) needs to maintain records about the purchaser? As far as I understood it, their claim is that exactly this is not necessary.

View on HN

What makes you believe anyone (except maybe the purchaser themselves) needs to maintain records about the purchaser?

Unless you buy your digital coins using cash, the exchanges have the identity of those who purchase and redeem coins/tokens.

From the documentation:

  Taler is compatible with anti-money-laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) regulation, as well as data protection regulation (such as GDPR).

AML and KYC are all about removing anonymity. Merchants may not have the ability to correlate a purchase to you but the exchanges do; otherwise, they wouldn't be able to comply.

If you buy a coin, you have the bank sign it blindly, that means, after you unblind it, it is mathematically not possible to deeive any correlation between the coin and what the bank saw. The bank only knows the value of the coin(s) you bought, not the identity, and, apparently this seems enough to fulfill those regulations? If you draw cash from an ATM, the bank also has an exact record from that ATM. And in addition might have recorded serial numbers of the banknotes... The exchange gets information about the merchant, but not about the purchaser (at least from the coin. The merchant might submit info about the purchaser such as the shipping address, but that is independent of the payment mechanism). That's strictly less than any credit card transaction.

The bank only knows the value of the coin(s) you bought, not the identity, and, apparently this seems enough to fulfill those regulations?

"Forgetting Your Customer" is *not* how you comply with "Know Your Customer".

Do you have any reference to how your blinding/unblinding supposedly works? Is it even mathematically possible to *insure* your identity is forgotten --- while still maintaining verifiable coin/transaction validity?

Without some such insurance, you're operating on blind trust and assumption. And you know what happens when you *assume* too much?

And in addition might have recorded serial numbers of the banknotes...

Except in very specific, pre-arranged circumstances (such as a ransom demand) they don't bother recording serial numbers --- simply because the info is quickly rendered obsolete and useless from the way cash is freely exchanged and "mixed" in the marketplace.

Cash is typically considered untraceable and is the ultimate physical form of anonymity. It neither requires nor provides any identity info. Gift cards purchased with cash are the ultimate form of digital anonymity. Neither of these conform to KYC.

The base objective of AML and KYC is to eliminate anonymity from transactions. Compliance is generally not possible otherwise.

Yes, it is mathematically ensured that the coin issuer cannot link the actual coin to the account you are buying it with. No blind trust needed, check the math yourself: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_signature For the specific implementation, you can check the taler source code.

Is is possible to trace back a gift card to the store that sold it? Maybe even the date and time? Then get the surveillance tape... If you pay with the same gift card more than once, all those transactions can be linked.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com