@DominicFrisby Financial Sense Newshour with James Puplava. He covered early bitcoin/gold developments with me. @FinancialSense_ https://t.co/o1mezXXxKG
OFAC just settled an enforcement action with @BitGo for apparently failing to prevent users in Crimea, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, & Syria from using its service.
Lots to say here, but first, it turns out Treasury *doesn't* need more KYC to enforce sanctions laws.
https://t.co/eoMOg27BL3
IN DEPTH: Statechains offer another way to scale bitcoin payments. New exploration has uncovered that statechains could boost #Bitcoin privacy as well. @commerceblock
Report by @AlyssaHertig
https://t.co/9J5NnT5oi1
This is a clear escalation of the Crypto Arms Race (privacy protocols vs. financial surveillance), and the technical privacy protocols must prevail for a free society.
When regulators, innovators, and everyone in between works together, we all win.
Read my latest piece in The Hill, where I discuss the new ruling proposed by FinCEN and why I think this can be a win for crypto.
https://t.co/JH9CgNDMDo
@evoskuil@nallyghee@SGBarbour Correct. In order to comply, you must reveal the origin of the bitcoin transaction. However, this compliance does not have to inadvertently reveal other unrelated transactions or total balance information.
@evoskuil@nallyghee@SGBarbour If the law requires a blockchain transaction history that goes 5 hops back, it can be provided. However, if the transaction data that goes 5 hops back is meaningless, it becomes an unfeasible mandate.
@evoskuil@nallyghee@SGBarbour That's not at all what I am saying. In the context of FinCEN requirements for identity verification to/from unhosted (freedom) wallets, it is only feasible to draw conclusions from that single transaction. It becomes essentially a virgin bitcoin.
@evoskuil@nallyghee@SGBarbour The point I am making is that complying with the law at the point of transaction does not necessarily have to include the crumbs to your full balance and previous archived transaction history. This is what is meant by the Crypto Arms Race.
@evoskuil@nallyghee@SGBarbour I think we have found where the disconnect lies. The law can only address the knowable. It cannot address the unknowable. Intent falls into the unknowable unless of course the intent is explicitly revealed.
@evoskuil@nallyghee@SGBarbour The usage of certain privacy tech does not really leave a footprint so it's not addressable through the law. While I concur on your 4 phases, individual safety/protection is critical during honeymoon and black market phases. Practicing coin hygiene is akin to wearing a condom.
@evoskuil@nallyghee@SGBarbour I realize what you are saying. However, practicing proper coin hygiene is not breaking the law. When, if ever, do you believe the practice of coin hygiene would be prudent or necessary?
@evoskuil These inevitable controls for $3,000/$10,000 bring bitcoin AML compliance in line with cash AML compliance. However, unlike cash, the data retention is a baby step towards actionable linked transaction information. Math, or privacy protocols, can break that linkage.