My ETH Wallet is wrongly sanctioned
depression2022.substack.com
depression2022.substack.com
Lots of people who became paper rich are going to go the other direction just as fast.
Seems like the system will punish censorship as designed.
This guy explains it in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyP0uxxB6V8
How does ETH do to stop miners from rejecting or preferring transactions for blocks today? Pretty sure there have been some interesting stories about transaction front running and other tactics to abuse the system for personal gain (which is a fundamental issue in the unregulated blockchain ecosystem)
Since all of these things are basically just printed money based on the faith of the people, and since ETH is number 2, I think it will survive centralization and regulatory capture, since most of the populace could care less about these things. It just happens to be that the ethos of crypto libertarianism isn't that important to valuing the network.
This also happens in regulated markets, but you have to be very well connected to do it. https://wwnorton.com/books/flash-boys/
For anyone interested, see: https://www.paradigm.xyz/2020/08/ethereum-is-a-dark-forest
I'm not sure about that. Some hodlers of ETH might be fine with governments being able to censor transactions. In that case what will determine the price of ETH is also how much of it these people own.
You won't find much on the technical implementation, because the sector as a rule keeps the implementation details generally under wraps. The intent is clear however. Lock as much of their financial resources in a sanctioned account as possible.
Will this just result in the next wallet being tainted, and so on? I guess maybe you can try to cash out the crypto before whoever you're selling to catches on?
How do you know that you did not transact with a sanctioned entity? (and by proxy did do something wrong)
> Interestingly, in the end I was able to withdraw all my funds from AAVE through direct contract calls as illustrated above. So basically the web UI is blocked but people can still use AAVE by sending transactions to the blockchains directly.
The only thing that was censoring his transactions was the website, which is centralized by design.
Becomes
> If they're smart, they wouldn't admit to it publicly.
Let me guess. Your favourite castle is motte and bailey?
Less of this, please. Obviously, not everyone into crypto and defi says those exact words. But there are enough saying that type of thing, where I think it's wrong of anyone involved with this to feign ignorance. They know what they're getting into.
>You could also argue that artists who sell their artworks for huge sums of money are associating themselves to money laundering.
Yes, that's why transactions for those huge sums are subject to AML laws.
That's not the case for every country on the planet
> Yes, that's why transactions for those huge sums are subject to AML laws.
And how do those prevent rich person A from paying rich person B (by buying a painting owned by B for an inflated price) for some illegal service?
It's not helping there either. Countries where the economy is strictly controlled by the government, like North Korea, are mainly using crypto and defi to centralize even more. Their government can use defi to steal from other countries with impunity, evading international laws while continuing to oppress their own citizens and disallowing them from using the internet.
>And how do those prevent rich person A from paying rich person B (by buying a painting owned by B for an inflated price) for some illegal service?
If it were done through a bank (or a law-abiding crypto exchange) they would be required to keep a log of the transaction and the legal identities of the participants, as well as a log of where the money came from and where it's going. The idea is, if buying the painting is just one of the steps to "clean" the money, they'll be able to trace it back to when the money was dirty.
I don't see how the North Korea thing is an issue. I'm not sure what hacks you're referring to but when it comes to smart contracts code is law and the people who use them know that, if you can't get back the tokens you sent to a smart contract it's only your fault for not understanding how the software works. I don't think North Korea should exist in the first place but I don't think the act of getting money from a smart contract is immoral.
As for using works of art to launder money, I meant something like rich person A offers child prostitutes (or any other illegal service or item) to rich person B, who pays A by buying one of their paintings for a higher price than what A paid for it.
It's pretty crazy how all the arguments for freedom of speech (and software) go out the window for many people whenever cryptocurrency comes up.
/s obviously
> Interestingly, in the end I was able to withdraw all my funds from AAVE through direct contract calls as illustrated above. So basically the web UI is blocked but people can still use AAVE by sending transactions to the blockchains directly.
How?
I giggled a little at reading it... A dude with way more money than brains is mad that "decenteralized finance" is decenteralized and can do whatever they want?
The guy then admits to losing a quarter of a million; you'd think that'd be enough of a penalty for him to realize that maybe he should take his remaining money out, but nope.
Gee. Who could've imangined that there's logical reasons for most financial regulations?
There are lots of people with a lot of money in the old banking system who are not tech savvy. They are routinely defrauded and affected by 3rd party fraud. Still, it doesn't warrant labeling them as "having more money than brains".
In the case of the article, this is someone who had some money in a centralized exchange (AAVE) which was hacked by a bad actor, and then the breadcrumbs were traced to the sanctioned TornadoCash accounts.
Victim shaming is wrong.
Hearing and reading it looks pretty obvious... I do think he is a victim.