• Mk23simp@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m sort of torn on whether it’s a good thing that this is possible.

    Like, I don’t think it’s good for Russia to be able to keep doing what they’re doing, but US sanctions are also often used for evil (IMO) so in those cases the existence of methods to evade them could be good.

    It’d be nice if the sanctions were only used in good ways in the first place, but that’s not currently the reality.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        The greatest demand for anything truly private/secure is from nefarious actors. That’s just the way it is. There are legitimate uses, including for private individuals who like the feeling of protecting their digital nuts. But we have to remember that there are enormous shadow empires with very deep pockets constantly thirsting for these technologies and prepared to use them at scale.

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        If you think crypto is utrackable, you haven’t been paying attention.

        The entire ledger of every transaction ever made, is 100% public.

        The only reason it’s kind of anonymous, is that the wallet ids are random strings of characters.

        But the second you know whose a wallet is, you can go back and see every place their money has ever been, as well as transparently watch every place it will ever go.

        HUGE numbers of wallets have already been deanonymized, and that’s a process that can’t be undone. Sure you can make a new wallet, but if you move your money into it from your old one, it’ll be pretty obvius who you are.

        If bank accounts were replaced by crypto wallets, everyones transaction history would effectively reveal who they are, since the ids of hospitals, shops, websites and services would have to be public.

        Matching that transaction data with even a little bit of personal info about someone would be beyond easy.

        No one could anonymously move money ever again.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          Crypto ≠ Bitcoin

          Monero is untraceable. At least until quantum computers break the encryption(s).

          But yes, pretty much aside from that, the best you’re gonna get is pseudo-anonymity.

        • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah hilariously, cash is actually more untraceable. Anything digital can eventually be tracked. It’s not easy, but it’s doable.

          • grill@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 day ago

            That is true for Bitcoin and most crypto tokens, but not for some that specialize in privacy, like Monero or even Ergo with ErgoMixer.

      • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 day ago

        BTC is trackable, its just immune to sanctions due to not being tied to any body of government.

      • pepperprepper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 day ago

        BTC is very trackable, ZCash and Monero are coins that strive for privacy. Watch ZCash spike as BTC gets cashed out just before BTC retraces down 40%. Has happened for the last 2 or 3 all time highs. That’s how they will mix their Ill gotten gains.

      • Mk23simp@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I said “I don’t think it’s good for Russia to be able to keep doing what they’re doing”

        I don’t know how you could interpret that as simping for the Russian invasion.

        I’m just not going along with the “This helps Russia therefore it is totally bad” knee-jerk. A tool that helps bad people could also help good people. And it probably does, because US sanctions are definitely on the wrong side a lot of the time (although I think they are on the right side regarding Russia’s invasion).