Hacker News Reader

Comment by acdha | Hacker News Reader

No, proving that you have adequate protection. Banks don’t need to show that every transaction is legit because they do show that they have processes for dealing with crime (try anonymously depositing $50k in cash).

Cryptocurrency does not have those safeguards and is famously popular for all kinds of criminal activities so it’s hard to take seriously the assertion that it’s all victimless and doesn’t need the same countermeasures.

View on HN

Depositing $50k in cash is not evidence of a victim. There should be no government imposed search without probable cause a crime has occurred thus it should be illegal (for government) to stop the anonymous deposit outside further evidence.

That one can transfer $50k worth of something like XMR, seemingly anonymously, is the entire point. You get your 4th amendment rights back.

Again, this thread started with someone asserting that money laundering didn't matter because it was victimless. My position is that this is absurd because not only is there no evidence showing that cryptocurrency transactions aren't used for crimes with victims, there is considerable evidence of real harm just from the ransomware use.

If you want to argue that your bank checking ID is an illegal search, feel free to contact your elected representative.

No they responded that "AML/KYC violations " (the allegations they responded about) were "generally (although not always) victimless crimes."

The violation wasn't money laundering the violation was not putting into place state mandated guards to impose AML compliance and the appropriate (arguably unconstitutional) searches.

Yes, this has been covered extensively. Money laundering is a crime primarily committed to cover up other crimes. It’s “victimless” in the sense that driving the get away car or fencing stolen goods is – and if you remember the example I gave earlier of ransomware, there are categories of crime which would not be committed if non-KYC cryptocurrencies didn’t exist because they would not be cost-effective.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com