Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

“Completely untrue”, this is a mathematician’s answer.

Any real person using DeFi or NFTs is not using a privacy coins



sort by: page size:

I think another important thing to mention is that there is a regulation on centralized crypto exchanges about unhosted wallets. Therefore, this regulation is completely against defi I would say.

You'd need to be pretty confident you haven't made a mistake in laundering your money through a privacy coin. And that the logic is sound enough that they haven't been compromised without your knowing (or ever will be in the future).

Better you than me..


This is not crypto, this is Enron, Theranos and Madoff. In DeFi, you check the code once, and that's what gonna run (exception being proxy contracts, but those are a red flag in itself).

there are no such thing as 'crypto transactions to IP addresses' unless he uses an exchange.

Seems rather pointless. I mean, you're not sending them crypto, you're sending crypto to BlockPay and hoping they collect it.

That being said, 85% of conversations about NFTs are non-consensual, so you may very well find a market for your service.


Yes, except you are 100% in control of what goes on on your server and could easily falsify data. The _whole_ point of cryptocurrencies is to avoid that.

I wonder how often such motions pass. It's obvious CoinDesk wants it so they can plaster the names on their website for views, so how does this weigh against a reasonable measure of privacy? These people haven't done anything illegal by signing sureties.

They don't have the ability to spend your coins.

If you trust every other aspect of their service (that they aren't capturing and storing your password, which of course they handle every time you use the service), then you can feel safe in knowing that you don't have to trust them not to spend your coins because they can't.

But only if you trust that every other part is honored.

That isn't a rational set of conditions. In the usage of Blockchain.info, they absolutely gain the capacity to capture your private keys. As does anyone who hacks the service.


Yes technically that's true but it doesn't really matter, those laws won't have any effect on activities like this.

There's always some other hacker in some other country ready to take your unsecured coins.


Only if using the wrong crypto.

Sites like eBay would require user identity verification whether or not the government required it. Can you imagine the scale of fraud on eBay if users were allowed to set up anonymous accounts and accept irreversible currency transactions to anonymous sellers? It would be a scammer’s dream come true.

I wouldn’t have any interest in using such marketplaces.

As for Brave: Whether or not KYC or other regulations explain their behavior, any cryptocurrency rewards program has an inherent incentive to make it as difficult as possible to cash out. People who cash out almost always sell their coins, putting downward pressure on the price. If they can use dark patterns to reduce the number of people selling coins, the coin price stays higher.

The ideal cryptocurrency rewards program (for the crypto, not the users) would give people coins but almost force them to hold those coins and make it as difficult as possible to sell. This simultaneously hypes the coin by spreading awareness and removes downward price pressure by making it difficult to sell. This almost always means the company or founders have a lot of the coin that they plan to sell off as it becomes popular.

Virtually everything that comes attached with arbitrary crypto tokens or rewards is a scam to make the founders wealthy while the users chase pennies.


>coins with no history on the blockchain

I imagine that you would do this as a step in a money laundering scheme.


It still doesn't protect from possible future tainting of those tokens and thus suspicion of your participation. It may be even more suspicious as you would be the one who bought clean coins supposedly in order to minimize attention to whatever future crime the tokens may be involved.

Cryptocurrencies aren't remotely trustless.

You may not need to trust that the central bank won't fire up its printing press, true. But you're absolutely trusting that someone somewhere will want to exchange your bitcoins for something other than bitcoins, and there's no inherent reason why they would.


People holding coins in their own wallets are entirely unaffected.

I'm not a crypto guy, so this may be a very basic question: If people can hold coins in their own wallets, why did they give them to these companies acting like banks? Were they promised interest or something?

I hope that crypto exchanges are outlawed soon.

Isn't the primary use case for crypto that it's beyond the reach of laws?


Surely if it's in cryptocurrency it will never be in their bank account?

Doesn't sound questionable. In fact it sounds exactly what my bank does.

Unless of course cryptocurrency really is about anonymity, tax evasion and laundering money.


If you send coins to a cold wallet, you will be more or less free from approval, and even pseudonymous if you're careful.

Normal individual transactions are secure. I can send money to Bob without worry that someone is going to somehow use the data in that transaction to steal my entire wallet.

The "rug pulls" you see are from contracts written maliciously. DeFi is a ponzi scheme written into a Smart Contract, but some of them have an extra function that allows the creator to instantly steal all the money out of it.

next

Legal | privacy