Is anyone else starting to become a bit worried? mod note in first post

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

Let me stop you right there. I asked you did the world cave in when we didn't have KYC/AML - which is not that long ago. You have no answer for that...the reason being that it didn't!

Yup I don't have an answer to that, because it's a subjectively loaded question. A better way to phrase it is: did banking work without KYC and AML, the answer is yes it did

I don't agree with you, but I am fascinated by your opinion on this. What is your alternative solution? (as posed by my questions)

banks are not law enforcement.

Cool, you run one of the Irish banks

1. Do people require identification to sign up or can anyone from anywhere at any age open an account?

2. Are there any checks on any of the cash movements in your bank or do you completely turn a blind eye?

Dohnjoe

cnocbui wrote: »

I seem to recall you saying you are a KYC enforcer, so I have a question:

Am not, but I do work alongside compliance and regulators

Someone living in my house has a bank account linked to another address. They can't change the address on that account - I'm sure you will probably want to ask why, but please don't, just take it as a given - that is the situation.

This person want's to open a new account with another bank, due to 'difficulties' related to the other account.

KYC is preventing them opening an account due to their inability to provide proof of address. It's my house and all bills are in my name. They have no mail coming to this address that is acceptable to a bank for KYC.

I would welcome your suggestions as to how they can open a bank account.

They'll probably need to give a valid reason as to why they have a bank account linked to another address that cannot be changed. That's probably the crux.

I don't work on an underlying client account level, perhaps they can try their luck with other banks and see if they will accept.

Anything that raises a red flag, a bank will typically pause and make sure to follow regulations rather than just please the client. Yes that can suck for anyone stuck in administrational purgatory, and I don't know the details of the case, but that's one of the unfortunate side effects of having to be compliant with regulators and the law

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup I don't have an answer to that, because it's a subjectively loaded question. A better way to phrase it is: did banking work without KYC and AML, the answer is yes it did

There's nothing loaded about it - it's a perfectly straightforward question. And setting an entirely different question is not appropriate. You know well what was intended here. The question was - was there more criminality, etc. without KYC/AML? Did the world fall apart? The answer is that there is no material difference.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What is your alternative solution? (as posed by my questions)

I answered your question already. Scrap it in its entirety. If someone sees criminality in play they should report it as any ordinary decent citizen would. However, banks shouldn't be regulated into being law enforcers. That's a mistake.

cnocbui

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Am not, but I do work alongside compliance and regulators



They'll probably need to give a valid reason as to why they have a bank account linked to another address that cannot be changed. That's probably the crux.

I don't work on an underlying client account level, perhaps they can try their luck with other banks and see if they will accept.

Anything that raises a red flag, a bank will typically pause and make sure to follow regulations rather than just please the client. Yes that can suck for anyone stuck in administrational purgatory, and I don't know the details of the case, but that's one of the unfortunate side effects of having to be compliant with regulators and the law

As I thought document forging is the only viable solution. I think KYC should involve a mechanism whereby An Post could certify a person's address. AP could add it as another revenue stream and a lot of people could get out of the wretched KYC proof of address bind.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

There's nothing loaded about it - it's a perfectly straightforward question. And setting an entirely different question is not appropriate. You know well what was intended here. The question was - was there more criminality, etc. without KYC/AML? Did the world fall apart? The answer is that there is no material difference.

Well that's not the answer, it's your personal speculation

I don't have the stats, do you?

I answered your question already. Scrap it in its entirety.

Just to confirm your position

If you ran a bank - there would be no identification process. Anyone with any name from anywhere of any age could sign up to your bank, correct?

You would have no checks whatsoever on the cash in your bank

1. And you see absolutely no problem with that? correct?

2. You are loathe to sign up for a bank account using your passport (which I presume I use to travel) for privacy reasons, but you have absolutely no problem with the bank knowing all your personal transactions, correct?

Dohnjoe

cnocbui wrote: »

As I thought document forging is the only viable solution. I think KYC should involve a mechanism whereby An Post could certify a person's address. AP could add it as another revenue stream and a lot of people could get out of the wretched KYC proof of address bind.

I wouldn't recommend forging documents. Without details we have no idea if your friend is dodgy or not.

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Well that's not the answer, it's your personal speculation

I don't have the stats, do you?

In testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee, John Casara - Treasury Special Agent - stated that "money laundering enforcement fails 99.9% of the time". Financial crime expert Raymond Baker has said that total failure is just a decimal point away.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

1. And you see absolutely no problem with that? correct?

Clearly you have something specific in mind here. Lets hear it.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

2. You are loathe to sign up for a bank account using your passport (which I presume I use to travel) for privacy reasons, but you have absolutely no problem with the bank knowing all your personal transactions, correct?

Where did I say that I have no problem in banks knowing all my transaction information? What relevance has this in the context of this discussion? - please clarify.

cnocbui

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I wouldn't recommend forging documents. Without details we have no idea if your friend is dodgy or not.

I can guarantee my lodger is not dodgy. They just want to be able to do online banking and not have to use ATMs all the time. I understand why you wouldn't recommend forging documents. I'll put it in the same basket where I keep a note about 'should not exceed speed limits'.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

In testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee, John Casara - Treasury Special Agent - stated that "money laundering enforcement fails 99.9% of the time". Financial crime expert Raymond Baker has said that total failure is just a decimal point away.

Indeed, does John Cassara support the complete removal of AML as you propose? Or is he in favor of even more AML and more intrusive checks?

Clearly you have something specific in mind here. Lets hear it.

Answers to the questions if possible

1. Do you believe that any person anywhere of any age should be able to open up a bank account, even under a false name?

2. Do you think banks should not have any checks whatsoever on the activity of their clients?

Where did I say that I have no problem in banks knowing all my transaction information? What relevance has this in the context of this discussion? - please clarify.

Do you have a problem with a bank knowing all of your transaction information? do you think internal cash movements should be invisible to the bank?

To clarify, I am trying to find out how far down the rabbit hole this goes

Dohnjoe

cnocbui wrote: »

I can guarantee my lodger is not dodgy.

And that the situation is fully legal? then consult a lawyer. A first consultation is not that expensive, and they should be able to advise you (if it's turning into a big mess)

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, does John Cassara support the complete removal of AML as you propose? Or is he in favor of even more AML and more intrusive checks?

You can't provide any stats/evidence/reports that confirms that the world is a far better place with KYC/AML. You challenged me to substantiate the opposing view. I've done that. Accept it.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To clarify, I am trying to find out how far down the rabbit hole this goes

Don't be coy. Where is this line of questioning leading? If you have a point to make Dohnjoe, then kindly make it.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

You can't provide any stats/evidence/reports that confirms that the world is a far better place with KYC/AML.

No I can't, I don't even know if those stats exist. Maybe they do.

But contained within your argument is a notion along the lines of "money laundering exists, so AML doesn't work", which is the same logical fallacy as claiming "crime exists, so police don't work"

This will really bake your noodle - it's quite possible that the net amount money laundering has actually increased in the last 3 decades

You challenged me to substantiate the opposing view. I've done that. Accept it.

You provided an opinion of an expert who's been in the business for 26 years. An expert who supports AML (and wants more checks)

That completely contradicts your view of "no checks"

Don't be coy. Where is this line of questioning leading? If you have a point to make Dohnjoe, then kindly make it.

I am getting you to confirm your position, because I believe you'll just change it and modify it in order to deflect from points.

In your world, anyone can open a bank account, and banks don't check any movements.

So if you had a bank like that, you were the CEO, and a terrorist attack happened in Ireland, a lot of casualties, and the investigation linked the perpetrators to your bank - what would you do? how would you explain that you don't have their details? how would you justify that? that you have no anti-terrorism measures? no checks on their bank movements?

I can think of countless scenarios, that have actually happened, I am just genuinely very curious as to how "your" style of bank would deal with them

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No I can't, I don't even know if those stats exist. Maybe they do.

Meanwhile, I've provided you with evidence of it not working.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

But contained within your argument is a notion along the lines of "money laundering exists, so AML doesn't work", which is the same logical fallacy as claiming "crime exists, so police don't work"

That's not correct. AML doesn't work - that's already been established and evidenced in this discussion. Lets get to your logical fallacy which appears to be lock everyone up and crime will plummet. It seems in your eyes it doesn't matter the harm it does to the broader population if a policy like this manages to upend one additional criminal. Meanwhile, money launderers are sophisticated - they play this game to a level where they evade the practice.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This will really bake your noodle - it's quite possible that the net amount money laundering has actually increased in the last 3 decades

Eh, why are we talking about the 'quite possible'? It's 'quite possible' that I'll go out and buy a hang sandwich but that's equally as irrelevant to this discussion.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That completely contradicts your view of "no checks"

It does no such thing. It proves that implemented over many years, it hasnt worked. That was the context. Even the guys implicated in the whole application of AML/KYC say that it doesn't work.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

In your world, anyone can open a bank account, and banks don't check any movements.

So if you had a bank like that, you were the CEO, and a terrorist attack happened in Ireland, a lot of casualties, and the investigation linked the perpetrators to your bank - what would you do? how would you explain that you don't have their details? how would you justify that? that you have no anti-terrorism measures? no checks on their bank movements?

I can think of countless scenarios, that have actually happened, I am just genuinely very curious as to how "your" style of bank would deal with them

Well there's a very simple answer to this. There was some chatter about Hezbollah holding crypto. There has been more recently with regard to North Korea and Venezuela. So - along the same lines as what you're going on with - do I think anything should change with regard to decentralised crypto on that basis? Most definitely not - because that would deprive ordinary people of a means of exchanging value without the totalitarian mass surveillance.

Other than that, we've already established that sophisticated criminal enterprises can work around this KYC/AML nonsense.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I am getting you to confirm your position, because I believe you'll just change it and modify it in order to deflect from points.

Away with your nonsense. Free and open discussion is not rocket science. That you dislike any counterpoints I make (because they don't fit your narrative) is an issue for yourself to resolve. I'm not interested in your protracted fishing exercises. If you have a point to make, then kindly make it.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

Meanwhile, I've provided you with evidence of it not working.

You provided a selective quote of an ex-professional who supports AML and increased checks.

You've also seem to have subjectively decided this individual represents a consensus on the issue

Lets get to your logical fallacy which appears to be lock everyone up and crime will plummet.

Not my view at all

Away with your nonsense.

You are repeatedly avoiding the questions

According to you, money laundering is a serious problem, so what should banks do about it right now?

You solution is less anti-money laundering measures. Correct? Fine, so what do you propose instead to combat money-laundering? (now, not in the future)

I'm not sure you'll address any of the current or previous questions, but to summarise, your current stance appears that banks shouldn't know the identity of their customers/clients, that basically anyone, including kids, criminals, terrorists, anyone can sign up

And that there shouldn't be any measures in place to stop tax evasion, money-laundering, fraud, financial crimes, terrorist financing, market malpractice (which is what AML targets)

Edit: and I forgot to mention, furthermore, you seem to believe that screening checks by banks and measures to stop financial crimes are actually part of a secret conspiracy by all governments to get more private info on people

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You provided a selective quote of an ex-professional who supports AML and increased checks.

It's far more than you provided. As regards what he supports - neither here nor there (in fact it adds value as there's definitely no bias - if there was any doubt, he likely would have said aml works). The point was to provide evidence of it working or not working - you've come up with nada.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You've also seem to have subjectively decided this individual represents a consensus on the issue

See above

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not my view at all

Closer to your view than you're even conscious of from where I'm standing.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are repeatedly avoiding the questions

Lets be clear on a couple of things Dohnjoe. It's my prerogative if I want to answer your questions or not. If I've chosen not to - it's because I fail to see the relevance of your questions in the context of the discussion. I've challenged you on that. I've queried what the point is to your questions - and you're not making that point. Kindly, make your point.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According to you, money laundering is a serious problem, so what should banks do about it right now?

Big Banks? Stop facilitating it directly themselves. As if that would happen, right.

Money laundering by and large is symptomatic of some crime or other. If thats the case, then investigate and tackle the actual crime.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You solution is less anti-money laundering measures. Correct? Fine, so what do you propose instead to combat money-laundering? (now, not in the future)

See above.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'm not sure you'll address any of the current or previous questions, but to summarise, your current stance appears that banks shouldn't know the identity of their customers/clients, that basically anyone, including kids, criminals, terrorists, anyone can sign up

Lets flip your unreasonable questioning right around dude. I believe that Snowden is right on point with this => " “The only world in which you can foreclose on entire avenues of human activity … is a world in which everybody’s sitting in a jail cell.”"

That's what I believe. Now, in establishing that you can't go trampling over the civil liberties of ordinary people YOU tell me what you're going to do about all these things? YOU come up with a solution for that - because screwing over ordinary people should never be one of them.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And that there shouldn't be any measures in place to stop tax evasion, money-laundering, fraud, financial crimes, terrorist financing, market malpractice (which is what AML targets)

As above. Take trampling over the civil liberties and rights of ordinary people OFF the table. Now, you are free to suggest whatever the hell you want in tackling those issues.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Edit: and I forgot to mention, furthermore, you seem to believe that screening checks by banks and measures to stop financial crimes are actually part of a secret conspiracy by all governments to get more private info on people

Yeah, you want to tar and feather matters with the 'conspiracy' line. The only thing there is that it falls flat on its face. I have no major interest in conspiracies. If you are trying to tell me that corporate entities - inclusive of banks have not abused data, whats left of your credibility in this discussion has just withered away.
If you are trying to tell me that governments are perfect and never abuse power, never abuse data that is available to them - ditto - you have no credibility. I cited a specific recent example (Chinese Government using KYC/AML data to target citizens) and you had NO answer.

Added to that, there's all the hacks and privacy breaches - at Capital One, at Visa, at Mastercard....i'd need a few months to put a complete list together. All because of your precious KYC/AML.

My views are in line with the likes of Snowden and Antonopoulos - both very well respected. So you throw the unsubstantiated and plain wrong 'conspiracy theory' jibe at me - you're doing so with them to - and practically anyone involved in the initial development of the crypto space.

Lets get back to this. How on earth are you lingering around here when its as clear as night and day you despise decentralised crypto? Our two resident trolls are becoming more credible comparatively as you go along in this discussion.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

That's what I believe. Now, in establishing that you can't go trampling over the civil liberties of ordinary people YOU tell me what you're going to do about all these things? YOU come up with a solution for that - because screwing over ordinary people should never be one of them.

Over 300 hundred people have just been arrested in one of the largest cases of it's kind, they were identified through KYC.

It's incredible observing someone arguing illogically against that because having to provide a passport identify to open a bank account or join an exchange "annoys" them.

Yeah, you want to tar and feather matters with the 'conspiracy' line.

It's your personal conspiracy theory. The powers-that-be have nefariously "invented" bank checks and anti-crime measures as a secret ruse to, what is it again, spying on us and our financials? The regulators I work with are spying on our clients for the government or how does it work? Politicians are using it to spy on other politicians, or just those on the opposing party, or they are all "working together"?

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

Lets get back to this. How on earth are you lingering around here when its as clear as night and day you despise decentralised crypto? Our two resident trolls are becoming more credible comparatively as you go along in this discussion.

Indeed, that's your personal opinion.

I have plenty of decentralised crypto myself. Like anything it has pluses and minuses. Also it's a public forum, as long as it's within guidelines/rules, people can post their opinions. If this is deemed off-topic that's perfectly fine, I'd be more than happy to take it up on a finance/economics forum. This discussion is directly based on the case with people using Bitcoin and being identified via crypto exchanges.

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Over 300 hundred people have just been arrested in one of the largest cases of it's kind, they were identified through KYC. #

And there is no other way that they could have been taken down apart from through the use of KYC...go figure:rolleyes:

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's incredible observing someone arguing illogically against that

Firstly, see above - I'm quite happy to see the very same crime faught using other means - and there are a range of other means. Secondly, it's totally disingenous to skirt behind one case whilst not paying heed to all the damage that KYC/AML causes.
Secondly, it's only deemed to be 'illogical' by you as you are diametrically opposed to my views on the matter. There's nothing illogical with anything I've presented here.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

because having to provide a passport identify to open a bank account or join an exchange "annoys" them.

Lies. You try and make it sound like KYC/AML is an annoyance - when it's so much more than that. Lets recap on the downsides of KYC/AML;

- It tramples over the rights of millions of people - their right to data privacy, their right to exchange value unimpeded.
- It compounds that - with data breaches that keep on coming....with data falling into the hands of those that you purport KYC/AML is combatting.
- It adds bureaucratic layers of regulation and compliance to banking - trying to make law enforcers of bankers - which they clearly are not and never will be.
- That layer of bureaucratic nonsense comes with an immense cost - that ordinary people are not fully aware of - but that they (ultimately) pay for.
- That layer of bureaucratic nonsense, with its associated costs - has led to a situation where millions of people globally are left unbanked.
- It puts privacy data in the hands of governments and corporates - both of whom are well capable of abusing said data.
- It causes friction for ordinary people. The amount of time expended on this whole process is bonkers.
- That friction has led to a retarded rate of uptake of innovations in finance/fintech - inclusive of cryptocurrency. There is no doubt that thousands more would have dipped their toes in crypto if it wasn't for this nonsense.

All of these points were laid out for you in the course of this discussion and you try disingenuously to bring that down to a mere 'annoyance'? You have no credibility in this discussion.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's your personal conspiracy theory. The powers-that-be have nefariously "invented" bank checks and anti-crime measures as a secret ruse to, what is it again, spying on us and our financials? The regulators I work with are spying on our clients for the government or how does it work? Politicians are using it to spy on other politicians, or just those on the opposing party, or they are all "working together"?

You're trying to denegrate my position with lies - sheer lies. I have presented nothing that resembles a conspiracy theory. You have NO answer to any of the examples that I cited. You can't argue with the fact that private concerns ( banks) and governments have abused KYC data. I've presented examples of same - it's evidenced.
As regards this position being my personal view - it's a view that's shared by practically all of the early contributors to the bitcoin project and early crypto.

Once again, would you care to tell us what the hell you're doing discussing crypto when it's as clear as night and day that you are diametrically opposed to it?

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, that's your personal opinion.

I have plenty of decentralised crypto myself. Like anything it has pluses and minuses. Also it's a public forum, as long as it's within guidelines/rules, people can post their opinions. If this is deemed off-topic that's perfectly fine, I'd be more than happy to take it up on a finance/economics forum. This discussion is directly based on the case with people using Bitcoin and being identified via crypto exchanges.

May I recommend Ripple to you then - because it's right up your street.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

Firstly, see above - I'm quite happy to see the very same crime faught using other means - and there are a range of other means.

Financial crimes. Okay, what other means?

And to address the below

- It tramples over the rights of millions of people - their right to data privacy, their right to exchange value unimpeded.

According to your personal opinion. I haven't seen any legal cases or challenges to KYC upheld, so no.

- It compounds that - with data breaches that keep on coming....with data falling into the hands of those that you purport KYC/AML is combatting.

Yup, data breaches happen. There have been e.g. private medical data breaches, that doesn't mean that medical data cannot be stored from now on, nor it it an argument against storing that private data. The only argument is how to store the information more securely.

- It adds bureaucratic layers of regulation and compliance to banking - trying to make law enforcers of bankers - which they clearly are not and never will be.

Yes it does. And they are responsible for the security of their services and their clients up to a certain extent. That's law and regulation.

- That layer of bureaucratic nonsense comes with an immense cost - that ordinary people are not fully aware of - but that they (ultimately) pay for.

Indeed, compliance is very expensive. But no one has come up with a cheaper alternative. And no compliance whatsoever (which you seem to propose) is unfeasible. HSBC Mexico had virtually no compliance and is famous for being abused by drug traffickers. Which is the reason why they had to go and spend vast sums on upgrading their compliance and AML departments.

- That layer of bureaucratic nonsense, with its associated costs - has led to a situation where millions of people globally are left unbanked.

Hmm, a bit tenuous. If they have identification and access, they can typically open an account or access a third party payment style system. Otherwise it's more of a question of economics, geography (remote), social mobility, access to technology and so on

- It puts privacy data in the hands of governments and corporates - both of whom are well capable of abusing said data.

Yeah it does, but we have rights. Your ISP could abuse your data, your workplace could abuse your data, your phone company could abuse your data - it doesn't mean automatically they will.

- It causes friction for ordinary people. The amount of time expended on this whole process is bonkers.

I'm on at least 15 crypto exchanges, it's not that bad. I take a photo with my passport, send it in, wait to be approved. Not sure why you are creating such a fuss over that.

- That friction has led to a retarded rate of uptake of innovations in finance/fintech - inclusive of cryptocurrency. There is no doubt that thousands more would have dipped their toes in crypto if it wasn't for this nonsense.

Maybe, maybe not.

You're trying to denegrate my position with lies - sheer lies. I have presented nothing that resembles a conspiracy theory.

KYC is a ruse to enable financial surveillance

KYC was racheted up post 9/11 at the behest of the yanks. They've been using it as a weapon in their geo-political nonsense - and trampling over peoples rights and civil liberties in the process.

Edward Snowden and Andreas Antonopoulos recognise KYC/AML for what it is -> Mass Surveillance

Hmm.

Once again, would you care to tell us what the hell you're doing discussing crypto when it's as clear as night and day that you are diametrically opposed to it?

If I were "diametrically opposed" to it, I or anyone else has every right to discuss it.

Dohnjoe

"Researchers have found that a majority of bitcoins used to launder dirty money pass through unregulated cryptocurrency exchanges. Exchanges in countries with little or no Anti-Money Laundering regulations receive as much as 36-times more bitcoin involved in money laundering than those in countries with AML rules in place. "

https://www.techbullion.com/should-crypto-exchanges-take-kyc-seriously/

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Financial crimes. Okay, what other means?

And to address the below

You're free to use whatever means available once we take the abuse of peoples privacy and privacy data off the table.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According to your personal opinion. I haven't seen any legal cases or challenges to KYC upheld, so no.

What are you talking about? Of course it does - no financial product can be accessed without privacy data being handed over - as per your KYC/AML system.
That's not my personal opinion.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup, data breaches happen. There have been e.g. private medical data breaches, that doesn't mean that medical data cannot be stored from now on, nor it it an argument against storing that private data. The only argument is how to store the information more securely.

Two points on that. They've been consistently negligent in handling that privacy data over the duration. Secondly, none of this would be happening if we didn't have this nonsense in place from the get go.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yes it does. And they are responsible for the security of their services and their clients up to a certain extent. That's law and regulation.

Sure - then take away those errant laws and regulation and no more problem.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, compliance is very expensive. But no one has come up with a cheaper alternative. And no compliance whatsoever (which you seem to propose) is unfeasible.

The cheaper alternative is to bin this abusive system. I reject this notion that KYC/AML has to be. Get back to the drawing board and design something that doesn't trample over peoples data privacy or rely on other modes of law enforcement.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

HSBC Mexico had virtually no compliance and is famous for being abused by drug traffickers. Which is the reason why they had to go and spend vast sums on upgrading their compliance and AML departments.

Correction - they were actively and directly facilitating the cartels....for which they paid something like a billion and a half in fines (which probably means it was a drop in the ocean as regards the amount of money they moved for them).

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Hmm, a bit tenuous. If they have identification and access, they can typically open an account or access a third party payment style system. Otherwise it's more of a question of economics, geography (remote), social mobility, access to technology and so on

It's in no way tenuous. If you remove the KYC/AML compliance (which doesn't scale) and associated costs, modern day banking systems otherwise scale. It wouldn't matter if they onboarded people of meager means - as the associated cost would be negligible. Otherwise, this problem will continue.

Where I'm living there are unbanked people. I've had occasion to send a couple of them money. They have very efficient western union style money transfer services here - but those people get fleeced in that process. It's yet another knock on effect. Nobody in Ireland sees that but there are millions affected by it.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah it does, but we have rights. Your ISP could abuse your data, your workplace could abuse your data, your phone company could abuse your data - it doesn't mean automatically they will.

Ok, but we have examples of data being abused in this instance. We shouldn't go there to begin with.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'm on at least 15 crypto exchanges, it's not that bad. I take a photo with my passport, send it in, wait to be approved. Not sure why you are creating such a fuss over that.

It isn't a fuss until it is. You have that stuff lined up and no bother. But circumstances vary. That could be the deal for years and no issue. However, start travelling internationally and things get screwed up completely. Start to experience KYC/AML on steroids in some other countries (like i have recently) and you might change your mind.
I had a friend who accepted bitcoin for a small online business and he had major trouble in trying to get people to pay in crypto. KYC was the bulk of that friction. You or I may have the where with all for that. However, don't assume everyone does. You only have to look at abandoned carts in the ecomm world to see how little that needs to be implicated to lead to people changing course.
Other than that, when i referred to time, i was also referring to the time spent on the banking side.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not.

It's not the type of thing that can be represented by stats but I'm convinced its been a huge element.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If I were "diametrically opposed" to it, I or anyone else has every right to discuss it.

that's fair enough.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

You're free to use whatever means available once we take the abuse of peoples privacy and privacy data off the table.

I'll ask again, in your world with no customer details and no anti-money laundering measures, how do they combat money laundering?

How do they combat terrorist financing? evasion of sanctions? tax evasion? all financially-related crime?

Am very curious to know your solution to that.

q85dw7osi4lebg

This chat is better than sleeping tablets

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'll ask again, in your world with no customer details and no anti-money laundering measures, how do they combat money laundering?

It seems you're not getting this. But no worries - I'll explain to you. You set out by not walking on the heads of ordinary decent people. That means getting rid of KYC/AML. I'm not under any obligation to justify to you its removal based upon what it gets replaced by. You're trying to set that context - that's your agenda - not mine.

The world will not cave in if we remove that injust regulation. Whilst it may have been round since the 1980's, it didn't get stepped up until post 9/11. Normal life went on just fine with out it - and it can again.

Additionally, you have not established it being in any way successful. Meanwhile, we have specific sources (experts in that field) confirming that it's 99.99% unsuccessful. Therefore, what difference will it make in real terms if its done away with?

What we do know is that there are a long, long list of positives associated with it's removal (as per my previous post).

Dohnjoe wrote: »

How do they combat terrorist financing? evasion of sanctions? tax evasion? all financially-related crime?
Am very curious to know your solution to that.

I don't want a government that I pay taxes to - playing a part in implementing this muck to facilitate sanctions! Sanctions make life miserable for ordinary people.
Otherwise, define terrorist? Apparently the militia (YPG) defending their own territory in Rohavia are terrorists. All seems to be black and white with your statist approach to this being unquestioning. They can take their KYC and shuve it where the sun don't shine.

Bitcoin was established - not to tackle and fight nonsense like this - but to build an alternative system entirely so people can opt out of it. As it develops, that will happen. Right now, the growing pains of having to come up with an existing system in place (viz a viz FIAT) will continue.

sabat

makeorbrake wrote: »

Bitcoin was established - not to tackle and fight nonsense like this - but to build an alternative system entirely so people can opt out of it.

Seeing as you don't even know the identity of the person who invented it, how can you possibly claim to know their true motivation? All you know is this supposed lone libertarian cyberpunk spiel with a hint of techno-orientalism in their alias. If some group or organisation wanted to create a bull**** narrative designed to con a certain demographic who experience life mainly via their PCs, it would probably sound a lot like the Satoshi Nakamoto story...

sabat

sabat wrote: »

Seeing as you don't even know the identity of the person who invented it, how can you possibly claim to know their true motivation? All you know is this supposed lone libertarian cyberpunk spiel with a hint of techno-orientalism in their alias. If some group or organisation wanted to create a bull**** narrative designed to con a certain demographic who experience life mainly via their PCs, it would probably sound a lot like the Satoshi Nakamoto story...

Just repeating this for emphasis..

makeorbrake

sabat wrote: »

Seeing as you don't even know the identity of the person who invented it, how can you possibly claim to know their true motivation?

The whitepaper itself, satoshi's posts online and i'm also taking into consideration the views of the small community of cipherpunks that were implicated in its early days. Is that good enough for you?

Other than that, what I stated is the reality. It's an alternate system entirely. It's censorship resistant and can't be taken down.

If you're going to claim that it's not, you're welcome to do so. Interested to hear the rationale you're going to base that on, though?

sabat wrote: »

If some group or organisation wanted to create a bull**** narrative designed to con a certain demographic who experience life mainly via their PCs, it would probably sound a lot like the Satoshi Nakamoto story...

Ok then, Sherlock. Lets hear it. What group or organisation? And what's the endgame? Coming from a guy who fails in the comprehension of designed in scarcity and the best part of 11 years after its debut, claims Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme, this should be interesting.

As regards the ignorant and presumptive 'experience life mainly via their PCs jibe', if that is somehow (and wrongly) based on participation in discussions here, then be sure to include yourself in your own ill conceived criticism (you may not post here much but you've been lurking here on a longterm basis).

Deleted User wrote: »

Just repeating this for emphasis..

aww...that's sweet.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

It seems you're not getting this.

So when I ask how we deal with money laundering without anti-money laundering measures .. you have no solution (I've asked you several times now)

Here's another question: if a bank doesn't know it's customers, how can it provide a mortgage to someone it doesn't know?

How can they give a loan if they don't know who they are giving a loan to, or what their ability to repay is?

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So when I ask how we deal with money laundering without anti-money laundering measures .. you have no solution (I've asked you several times now)

A solution to what? KYC has been found to be 99.99% ineffective. Crime is supposed to be the issue - not money movement (a symptom). The 'solution' has always been the same - go and fight crime directly.
Asked and answered several times - it's just that the answer doesn't fit your narrative.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Here's another question: if a bank doesn't know it's customers, how can it provide a mortgage to someone it doesn't know?

How can they give a loan if they don't know who they are giving a loan to, or what their ability to repay is?

And here's an answer for you. I don't give a fiddlers what banks do! Try to keep up - the conversation has been about removing the regulation.

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

The whitepaper itself

The stated goal in the white paper is to provide an architecture “allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party”, and the introduction explains that the rationales for doing this are to provide more certainty (irreversible transactions) and to reduce transaction cost (which at the moment Bitcoin only achieves for large cross border transactions).

See Satoshi’s own words in the white paper here: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

What specific quotes in there do you think show that the author wanted to fight the concept KYC/AML?

Also important I think is to recognise that while the white paper describes a system “allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party”, if doesn’t say that additional layers can’t be built on top of that system which are introducing third parties or a need for trusted relationships. What is key is that the option to avoid third parties is there on the base layer if you want it - there is no injunction to always use it.

If you were a white paper rigorist taking the option of non third-party transactions as an injunction rather than a possibility, at least 95% of what is being built in the crypto-space would be unacceptable to you. KYC/AML would just be a minor worry then, as even without KYC things as simple as most crypto exchanges, crypto-based debit cards, most crypto lending services, most crypto payment plugins for web browsers, etc would all go again your rigorist interpretation of the white paper as they require a trusted third party. So much for removing friction and driving adoption ...

In short: if one doesn’t like KYC and wants to adhere to the letter to the options given by the white paper, no problem the option is there for them to transact directly on the bitcoin blockchain and they won’t need to go through any KYC process. No one is preventing us from doing that.

But arguing that KYC shouldn’t exist on let’s say centralised exchanges because the Bitcoin base layer described in the white paper doesn’t call for KYC is incoherent, because the very concept of centralised exchange should also be removed if what the bitcoin base layer offers was to be taken as an injunction l. So someone with a coherent rigorist interpretation of the white paper would make no difference between a centralised exchange with KYC and one without KYC, and would just reject both of them for going against the white paper.

makeorbrake

Bob24 wrote: »

What specific quotes in there do you think show that the author wanted to fight the concept KYC/AML?

You've misunderstood my post because I didn't claim that (i.e. that any specific reference was made to KYC/AML) . However, the Bitcoin blockchain network stands outside of existing systems (including that nonsense). In your post, you seem to be acknowledging that.

Bob24 wrote: »

What specific quotes in there do you think show that the author wanted to fight the concept KYC/AML?

See above. I didn't make any such claim (specific to the whitepaper and KYC/AML).

Bob24 wrote: »

But arguing that KYC shouldn’t exist on let’s say centralised exchanges because the Bitcoin base layer described in the white paper doesn’t call for KYC is incoherent

I don't see centralised exchanges as any different to banks. They're the bridge between FIAT and BTC - whilst we need them.

KYC/AML is a construct of the established financial system. It's one of many things that the Bitcoin network designs out. KYC/AML should be scrapped as per the rationale set out and listed on post # 4072.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

Correction - they were actively and directly facilitating the cartels....for which they paid something like a billion and a half in fines (which probably means it was a drop in the ocean as regards the amount of money they moved for them).

Correction indeed..

HSBC was fined 1.9 bn. It's estimated at least $1 bn of drug money was laundered through HSBC's Mex accounts. The fee's on moving that cash would be relatively low compared to the amount

Therefore the fine of 1.9 bn was far in excess of any revenue HSBC made from the moving the cash.

It was discovered that HSBC Mex's compliance department was basically non-existent and they had poor money-laundering controls.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-20673466
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-bank-us-money-laundering
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-to-pay-1-9-billion-u-s-fine-in-money-laundering-case-idUSBRE8BA05M20121211

As a result they had to beef up AML and compliance.

That's something you are dead set against.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

I don't want a government that I pay taxes to - playing a part in implementing this muck to facilitate sanctions! Sanctions make life miserable for ordinary people.
Otherwise, define terrorist? Apparently the militia (YPG) defending their own territory in Rohavia are terrorists. All seems to be black and white with your statist approach to this being unquestioning. They can take their KYC and shuve it where the sun don't shine.

Wow, I missed this part.

So you are against sanctions (even though most sanctions target individuals, and entities linked to those individuals or directly to the regime). Okay. And you feel pretty much the same about anti-terrorist financing laws and regulations.

So to recap here

Your view is that a financial institution..

Doesn't check anyone's identity, any one can join, any age, any background
Has no anti money-laundering measures, no financial crime fighting measures
Can't check who it gives mortgages to
Can't analyse who it provides loans to
Ignores international sanctions
Ignores terrorist financing laws

So basically the worst triple-C rated Mafia bank imaginable, is the only financial institution that is acceptable in your personal view..

That's the one you'd use, right?

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Wow, I missed this part.

So you are against sanctions (even though most sanctions target individuals, and entities linked to those individuals or directly to the regime). Okay. And you feel pretty much the same about anti-terrorist financing laws and regulations.

So to recap here

I spoke to a Venezuelan yesterday. She sends money home so that her mother has food to eat. Right now, Venezuelans earn $3/week. Food costs multiples in excess of pay rates. Medication is extremely hard to come by and at best available at western prices but more likely way beyond that. That last factor is sanctions related. That's the system you support with your 'targeted individuals'.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So to recap here

Your view is that a financial institution..

Wrong! I said that the KYC/AML regulations - which dump all over ordinary people's data privacy should be removed - for all of the reasons listed in post # 4072. That Dohnjoe is what my view is - not this twisted concoction you're trying to present.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That's the one you'd use, right?

My aspiration for the future is not to have anything to do with ANY bank!

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Correction indeed..


That's something you are dead set against.

The correction holds...albeit it seems you have either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood the correction. You say this was simply a failure in terms of compliance when they ACTIVELY assisted in the process. They redesigned the shape and size of the ruddy cash boxes to facilitate them - that's how much cash was being dropped off!!!

And once again, you need to be working on a bit of acceptance of the fact that KYC/AML has been 99.99% ineffective as confirmed by a couple of different proponents of such regulation.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

And once again, you need to be working on a bit of acceptance of the fact that KYC/AML has been 99.99% ineffective as confirmed by a couple of different proponents of such regulation.

It isn't confirmed at all, it's based on individual opinion. I also know individuals who work in the area, some longer than 25 years who have different opinions.

Due to it's nature it's hard to produce exact stats.

It was also pointed out to you that one individual you keep quoting supports AML and not just that, but has the opinion more AML is required - this directly contradicts your stance.

You're essentially cherry-picking individual opinions of people who ultimately contradict you.

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It isn't confirmed at all, it's based on individual opinion. I also know individuals who work in the area, some longer than 25 years who have different opinions.

Due to it's nature it's hard to produce exact stats.

You're essentially cherry-picking individual opinions of people who ultimately contradict you.

And yet you can't produce anything to validate why a regulatory and compliance system which causes this - walking all over the data privacy of ordinary people, locking millions of people out of the banking system, causing day to day friction, costing millions, holding back innovation - is worthwhile. Go figure.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It was also pointed out to you that one individual you keep quoting supports AML and not just that, but has the opinion more AML is required - this directly contradicts your stance.

Pointed out to me? It was never in question and as I clarified (see that word 'proponent' up there?) - it only serves to strengthen my point. It can't possibly be a view coming from an anti-KYC background then, can it Dohnjoe?

It's a failure. I don't care what his recommendations are going forward. Have at it and change them. Maybe I'll change my mind on that basis but if its stomping over people's rights to transact value unimpeded - not bloody likely. And if it starts getting more anal - maybe I'll be delighted because it will drive more people to sanity check the whole 5hit5how - and potentially look at a growing alternative.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

Wrong! I said that the KYC/AML regulations - which dump all over ordinary people's data privacy should be removed - for all of the reasons listed in post # 4072. That Dohnjoe is what my view is - not this twisted concoction you're trying to present.

Hmm.

Removal of KYC/AML involves the below

• Doesn't check anyone's identity, any one can join, any age, any background (KYC)
• Has no anti money-laundering measures, no financial crime fighting measures (AML)
• Can't check who it gives mortgages to (KYC)
• Can't analyse who it provides loans to (KYC)

Non-respect of sanctions and anti-terrorist financing laws involves the below

• Ignores international sanctions
• Ignores terrorist financing laws

So a bank doesn't know who it's clients are, or they do? or you have some half-way house?

Likewise, a bank doesn't fight financial crime or it does? or you have some half-way house?

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Hmm.

Removal of KYC/AML involves the below

Stop yer games. I've been very clear on this. I suggest that the only just approach is to remove KYC/AML regulations for the reasons listed in post # 4072.

That's it. Your banks can take whatever approach they want thereafter and you can choose your bank based on the approach that they use...because we know Dohnjoe that a upstanding statist like yourself would never have his funds sitting beside that of the disreputable, right? :rolleyes:



That's where it stops. I ain't playing with your efforts to go round the houses on this.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

And yet you can't produce anything to validate why a regulatory and compliance system which causes this - walking all over the data privacy of ordinary people, locking millions of people out of the banking system, causing day to day friction, costing millions, holding back innovation - is worthwhile. Go figure.

Sure. You need to typically at least present valid ID and proof of residence when you join a financial service, because a) it's the law and b) the bank requires this, to know who you are, and also your background if they are going to provide loans/mortgages/banking services. They need to know you aren't using identify theft. That you aren't a sanctioned individual, known criminal, someone on a terrorist watchlist, etc.

When you travel, do you provide them with your passport? do you let them pat you down and search your luggage? answer personal questions from customs?

So why all this over-the-top personal hysteria over signing up for some financial service? it's probably quicker than queuing for a plane, and less intrusive

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

Stop yer games. I've been very clear on this. I suggest that the only just approach is to remove KYC/AML regulations for the reasons listed in post # 4072.

And replace them with what?

The fact that you keep dodging that question is very telling.

In your bank, what do I need to present to sign up. Or can I just sign up with a fake name? how does it work?

If there are no AML checks whatsoever, what do they do to stop criminals?

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So why all this over-the-top personal hysteria over signing up for some financial service? it's probably quicker than queuing for a plane, and less intrusive

The case and rationale has been laid out pretty clearly - particularly so through the points listed in post # 4072.

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And replace them with what?

You keep going and going when I've made it explicitly clear that either they don't get replaced at all or if they do get replaced, its by something that doesn't cause the issues listed in post # 4072.

I cannot be more explicit than that. Keep asking me - and you'll get the same answer.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The fact that you keep dodging that question is very telling.

Telling of the fact that there shouldn't be governmental overstep? Absolutely. Telling of the fact that up until very recently the world functioned just fine without this nonsense? Absolutely.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If there are no AML checks whatsoever, what do they do to stop criminals?

Illicit money movements are only a symptom of crime. I don't know Dohnjoe...you think maybe we could investigate the actual crimes that are leading to the accumulation of funds maybe? Just a thought.:rolleyes:

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

You keep going and going when I've made it explicitly clear that either they don't get replaced at all or if they do get replaced, its by something that doesn't cause the issues listed on post # 4072.

Well you haven't. When I asked you to detail what you'd replace bank screening and bank checks with, you refer to a list of your personal grievances with KYC and AML, that doesn't answer the question (or any of the related questions) When I asked about airports and passports, you referred to the same list.

That's dodging the questions.

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Well you haven't. When I asked you to detail what you'd replace bank screening and bank checks with, you refer to a list of your personal grievances with KYC and AML, that doesn't answer the question (or any of the related questions) When I asked about airports and passports, you referred to the same list.

That's dodging the questions.

I have!! I've told you there should be NO KYC/AML regulation - I can't make it more explicit than that. As regards you trying to drag me in to what a bank should do - that's a matter for a bank! Unshackled from the regulatory chains of KYC/AML, they are free to set their own policies.

These questions that you think I'm not answering are based on your vision on how this works - NOT MINE! Given that KYC/AML is a failure, there will be no noticeable difference when its done away with.

You can come back with the exact same nonsense and it will receive the exact same answer Dohnjoe.

As regards waywardly categorising the rationale set out in post # 4072 for why KYC/AML regulations should be confined to history, you have failed miserably to counter any of them. As an example, you suggested that the cost in time and money in implementing KYC/AML has nothing to do with the unbanked (the millions of people that are refused banking services) when it has EVERYTHING to do with it.
That's one single example.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

I have!! I've told you there should be NO KYC/AML regulation - I can't make it more explicit than that.

Indeed. But you haven't provided any practical, pragmatic argument for doing so, and certainly haven't provided any (viable) solutions or alternatives

The whole thing seems to hinge on your fairly strong views on privacy. That's fine, I like my privacy too, but within reasonable and practical limits.

KYC and AML is only increasing globally, it's law in most countries, and cryptos (exchanges, custodians) are generally following suit. While you may not agree it, it's simply a reality, those are the facts. On top of that, regulators hold a lot of power. Cryptos and crypto exchanges which continue to ignore guidelines on regulation, compliance, KYC and AML - they just increase the risk that at some point in the future, action may be taken against them. I wouldn't want to be using those exchanges or holding those cryptos when it does happen

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed. But you haven't provided any practical, pragmatic argument for doing so

I disagree completely - you make this wayward statement from a deeply prejudiced viewpoint. You indicated previously some link or other in your work with compliance/regulation. I'm sure it's very hard to stomach someone coming along and saying that this specific regulation is a sham. I get it - I truly do.
I have discussed this at far greater length than I ever wanted. However, the short form version of why this nonsense regulation should go is as per the list in post # 4072 .

Dohnjoe wrote: »

and certainly haven't provided any (viable) solutions or alternatives

There is NO alternative required. The world functioned just fine pre-KYC/AML and it will again. Other than that, money laundering is a symptom of criminal activity - how about the really radical idea of going after the ACTUAL criminal activity.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The whole thing seems to hinge on your fairly strong views on privacy. That's fine, I like my privacy too, but within reasonable and practical limits.

Actually no. That's central to it for sure - that the privacy data of ordinary decent people is being trodden on. However, I've cited a whole host of other rationale as to why it needs to go.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

KYC and AML is only increasing globally, it's law in most countries, and cryptos (exchanges, custodians) are generally following suit. While you may not agree it, it's simply a reality, those are the facts. On top of that, regulators hold a lot of power.

I don't doubt that it is. I'll pull you up on the 'facts' thing as this emerged in your previous posts. What a government proposes is not always in the best interests of citizens - it seems to me that you feel you're safe to assume that - but that wouldn't be correct at all.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Cryptos and crypto exchanges which continue to ignore guidelines on regulation, compliance, KYC and AML - they just increase the risk that at some point in the future, action may be taken against them. I wouldn't want to be using those exchanges or holding those cryptos when it does happen

Yes, crypto exchanges are no different to any other centralised financial services companies. Nobody has suggested any different.


This is going to be a long hard fought slog. However, the future is unconfiscatable and censorship resistent decentralised digital money. Once that ecosystem grows sufficiently, I - and plenty like me - will operate all but exclusively within that crypto ecosystem. At that point those of us who oppose your view won't give a fiddlers about the unjust regulation of unsound FIAT money.

q85dw7osi4lebg

I can walk into a goldsmith / jewellery shop and buy gold without ID. No KYC at all.


Bitcoin is digital gold.

Bob24

Gerald Obedient Manicurist wrote: »

I can walk into a goldsmith / jewellery shop and buy gold without ID. No KYC at all.


Bitcoin is digital gold.

Your jeweller will sell you jewellery made of a gold alloy (not investment gold) and subject to VAT, i.e. a consumer goods which happens to contain some gold (but which likely costs a lot more than the value of the gold it contains).

But to buy VAT-free investment-grade gold (22K or pure gold in the form of coins and bars), to my knowledge ID verification is required. This Irish bullion dealer seems to confirm it is a legal requirement in their FAQ: https://irishgoldbullion.ie/faqs