>The establishment of these information sharing platforms means that “if one country is attacked, others can quickly be defended”, Neuberger said.
pardon the dust whilst I apply my 14th century naval hammer to this clearly 21st century nail.
Adding wallets to a black list is highly effective because while there was a lot of dishonest marketing around blockchains improving privacy they’re actually perfect for censorship since a public ledger allows you to transitively taint every transaction downstream, significantly reducing the value of certain tokens and removing the ability of people to say they didn’t know the funds they are receiving were connected to a crime.
Observers cannot decipher addresses trading Monero, transaction amounts, address balances, or transaction histories, but im sure my old 14th century hammer will address this issue somehow even though subaddresses can be created that arent even remotely linked to my main address.
I don't think you can ban people doing crypto entirely, but you can make the financial exchange points where cash goes in and out ever more difficult.
It’s in the process of being grey listed. Similar to running an all-cash lifestyle, it’s possible. But you’ll have your money frozen and seized and stolen from time to time. And you will hit intentional roadblocks any time you attempt a major financial move.
You just ban encryption, then!
You just ban liquor/drugs, then!
Monero making law enforcement investigation more difficult due to privacy algorithms does not make it legal to ban.
You cannot ask ransoms in a currency the victim cannot access.
At $3bn “market cap,” Monero is not a serious problem.
The tech and established network are unlikely to go back in the box.
Sure. If it gets bigger, it can be addressed then. As it stands, it isn’t a problem.
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/H_1982-0103-... https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/H_1956-0403-...
Now, back on topic. Monero's claims have been lightly tested but never against a nation-state level adversary, so I'd be hesitant putting anything onto a blockchain which would be problematic if a flaw is discovered since there is, of course, no way to remove it. That said, let's assume that everything works exactly as planned and they've perfectly nailed the implementation. Do you ever wonder why cryptocurrency people call what they're building cash? That's because while a 14th century treasury officer wouldn't known a thing about hash functions, they were already very familiar with the problems caused by a truly anonymous means of exchanging value: actual cash.
If you've ever read old novels where people had to show explain their source of wealth, maintain accounts at specific banks with good reputations, visiting traders were required to store funds at state sanctioned banks, etc. that's because while it's impossible to tell where someone's coins came from you can make crime, especially tax evasion, considerably harder by requiring people to show positive proof of income and adding points where other people would have to collaborate with you. That certainly doesn't prevent fraud but it can reduce it considerably by increasing the cost and likelihood of being caught.
Obviously we have a big shift in the technology, but that same basic approach works well now: you don't need to control every blockchain transaction if the gateways into the real financial system are required to follow money laundering laws like everyone else. That's one of the reasons why almost no businesses used Tornado Cash, Monero, etc. because they didn't have a need to and when your accountants ask “how will we avoid the drug cartels using us to launder money?” and you say “we can't, that's a feature!”, they're going to start asking questions like who's going to go to prison.
If you use a mixer, that expands to cover all of your transactions. Any legitimate business has to worry about complying with local laws and they’re going to stop using options which don’t allow that or cost too much.
C'mon, anything to make the cyberpunk future less lame than it's turned out to be.
That said, cyber-privateering is actually a good idea. Cyberwarfare is in the same space as naval warfare was in the 17th century: it's not really an overt act of war, it's mostly committed by criminal organizations with the occasional big news state actor action, and there's a lot of money to be made.
Precisely! These would be! This is the kind of innovation the blockchain enables! /s