Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 07:45:14 AM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on August 24, 2022, 03:41:00 PM

You're just right, and everyone else is wrong, arguments asides.

Same old story with franky1. You might remember last year when the US passed new laws which said that anyone who was responsible for providing any service which makes transfers on behalf of another person was now classed as a broker and would be held to the same standards as a broker, i.e. needing to file the name, address, taxpayer details, amount, date, and nature of every party and every transaction, or be suspected of money laundering. Despite everyone on this forum, all of crypto Reddit and Twitter, the CEOs of various exchanges platforms, many prominent crypto media sites and personalities, and sitting Members of Congress saying that the scope of this wording was too broad and could be applied to anyone the government liked, from miners to developers, franky1 ranted long and hard about how we were all stupid and just scaremongering and hadn't read the law and didn't know what we were talking about, and he and he alone knew the one real interpretation of it and developers would never be targeted by the government. Fast forward and a Tornado Cash developer is arrested simply for writing code.

HE WAS NOT ARRESTED FOR JUST WRING CODE
as for the other part..
you lot were not saying "too broad" you lot were insinuating that bitcoin was broke because in your views YOU were saying that law directly implied miners, devs and node users had to register.
and thats what i said you were wrong about multiple times
thats the difference

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 07:45:14 AM

I'm sure franky1 will have some wildly convoluted reasoning as to why he is still right despite this and that these two things are definitely not linked in any way, just like he has some wildly convoluted reasoning which allows him to pick the one or two paragraphs from the FATF guidance which mention mixers while conveniently ignoring the pages and pages of the rest of the documents I've extensively quoted in this thread which mention every transaction which isn't on a KYCed account on a centralized exchange. Roll Eyes

your quotes were snipped where you had not understood the full context.
take the one where you thought it meant that vasps sending or receiving where kyc was weak or non existing should be suspect.. (how you perceived it)

the actual snipped was guidelines where a regiglated vasp thats complient sends or receives funds from aother vasp who is not providing KYC(but should) should treat any VA from that weal/non complient vasp as suspicious..
you doubled down to pretend it was about all virual currency transactions because transactions from wallets dont include KYC.. yet you didnt read the full context to realise it was about a complient VASP reading and following the guidelines is noticing another VASP that has weak or no CDD/KYC and that snippet had absolutely nothing to do with private wallets. normal users with their own nodes or other things that are not MSB

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 07:45:14 AM

Quote from: n0nce on August 24, 2022, 11:44:56 PM

What I don't understand franky: first you say we can use something that enhances our privacy but isn't called a mixer.

Which is frankly (pun intended) a hilarious assertion. He thinks the FATF are surveilling every transaction which uses a mixer, but if you deposit coins to any other non-KYC platform and then withdraw some different coins, they'll just throw up their hands and say "Well, that's not a mixer, so nothing we can do here! Damn, these guys are clever. Back to the drawing board I guess." Lol.

ha ha ha.. you are so delusional that you got your wires mixed up and forgot who said what about which
it was YOU that has been saying that due to the snippet you think meant something else that all transactions are sent as a SAR..
YOU kept saying the authorities are getting huge amount of SAR

i just said. and said before.. (check post history)
if a VASP is sending or receiving from or to another VASP that has weak or lacks CDD/KYC they will treat that as suspicious

yep you forgot that your snippet where you want to think was about private walets, users own nodes(every TX) was not about every TX ever on the blockchain.. it was infact as said many times by me correcting you.. about when a non complient platform that should be complient is not complient then treat that as suspicious

you are so warped and forgetful you truly cant even remember that basic correction for more than a day.

need a reminder??
where you (facepalm) thought that the snippet meant it covered all coins of al circumstances coming from every there AKA the while blockchain (in your view)(facepalm)

and where i corrected you.. well here it is yet again.. just to remind you

Quote from: franky1 on August 15, 2022, 12:00:25 PM

and please. stop being a pedantic idiot and actually take the time to learn things

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on August 14, 2022, 08:04:19 PM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on August 14, 2022, 07:41:52 PM

Quote from: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendations/Virtual-Assets-Red-Flag-Indicators.pdf

Receiving funds from or sending funds to VASPs whose CDD or know-your-customer (KYC) processes are demonstrably weak or non-existent.

Pretty sure that covers all the examples I gave above.

you want to pretend this means all coins are suspect(facepalm)
no its not about saying all utxos are suspect.
its a guidance for vasps.. where a vasp reading it and sees that it is receiving funds from a vasp...
its a guidance for vasps.. where a vasp reading it and sees that it is sending funds to a vasp...
where that vasps CDD or KYC processes are demonstrably weak or non-existent.

it means when funds are moved between vasps if one vasp is not following its CDD/KYC processes or doesnt comply at all even when it should. then treat funds coming from them as suspicious.

oh and this suspicious is not the government finding it suspicious because the government is watching for this..
its where the VASP that is compliant finds it suspicious where the VASP then watches and does a investigation to see what threshold level it meets to be worthy or not of a SAR

this is where you need to learn about the thresholds.. i mentioned it many times.. and you really ned to learn this stuff if you want to learn whats risky or safe to do.. seeing as you pretend to care so much about avoiding risks to your privacy..

yep if you actually care about your privacy you would want to learn. rather that find silly things to mis understand just to cause some social drama to stay ignorant that you can do as you please and laws dont apply to you..

now go do some proper research and think about things you could be doing. think for once
yea i know how you silly people do anything to avoid doing actual independent thinking and instead try to just twist words to get out of thinking

use your cognition not your ignorance and no playing silly games that they are the same thing if you swap out tio for rae and move a few letters around..
.. they are different things learn things.

use your brains, not your blinds and no swapping a for d to pretend its the same
.. they are different things. learn things

dont wastes more days or weeks to finds silly ways to avoid making new tools or learning how regulations and VASPS operate.. learn and then you may realise what is a risk and not a risk for you to learn how to work around them

now go learn