pull down to refresh

My impression of the prosecutor position is this: IF you build a privacy tools that IS used by criminals AND if that system can't have a KYC/AML backdoor THEN you go to jail.
This is dark.
This means that, using the same arguments, one could attack Bitcoin itself. Just remove the privacy part and replace it with pseudonymus and think of Bitcoin as the way it was intended (no custodial intermediaries), it will be permissionless and it will be used by criminals. Anyone building tools to facilitate this process, such as Phoenix, could be prosecuted, no?
At least, that's what I get from it based on my limited understanding.
reply
I don't think it has gone quite that far, but it is a pretty bad trend. Not good for privacy tools or tech.
reply
It hasn't gone that far, indeed, but that's what Sjors is highlighting... depending on the outcome of the trial, this could serve as a really bad precedent.
reply
you guys are so scared of your own shadow, laws are only as good as enforcement.
reply
So here you are, non custodian (not just a mixer): you have absolutely no legal basis to ask customers for personal information, they could sue you for doing so. But if you don't you might go to jail.
Either way, you might be jailed. Hopefully the court understands the dillemaa. If it doesn't, other places would also come with their own attacks.
reply