Slashdot Mirror
RMS Calls For "Truly Anonymous" Payment Alternative To Bitcoin
BitVulture writes "Richard Stallman took time to air his views on the crypto-currency that has become virtually as valuable as gold. In an interview with Russian media giant RT, Stallman praised Bitcoin for allowing people to 'send money to someone without getting the permission of a payment company'. But he also warned against a major weakness of Bitcoin and called for the development of 'a system for truly anonymous payment' online."
In many countries, it's illegal to make paper money transactions over a certain amount of money.
In many countries, it's illegal to make paper money transactions over a certain amount of money.
In other countries; the US included -- it is illegal to make paper money transactions over a certain amount: without filing a Cash Transaction Report (CTR), or under other conditions (e.g. A transaction $0.01 less than the reporting threshold; or multiple transactions suspected to be a structured transfer), a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR), with the feds.
In the [banana?] republic of Italy.
No personal, or business transaction (no matter if invoiced or not, no matter if you are doing transaction with the State itself) in paper money over 999 euro is allowed, and if you own a no profit the limit IIRC is 516 euro. It is possible to deposit whatever amount to banks and let them do the transaction.
Officially to combat crime and fiscal evasion.
Electronic money is more anonymous faster and more dangerous than paper money, once those handling it are powerful enough to trade internationally. Nothing has been done on that front. Therefore I guess the measure was to benefit the banking system in the short term, and the effects till now seems to confirm it. Those who could have been hampered by tracing have enough resources to resort to middlemen, obviously.
In the UK, and probably across the EU, it is not illegal, but there are laws that make it practically impossible.
Over a threshold (10k GBP, 15k euros I think), there are additional reporting and documentation requirements for cash transactions. It's enough hassle, and risk, for the recipient that you will struggle to find anyone (legitimate) that will take that much in cash. You could insist that you think it's your legal right to pay that way, but then you risk them calling the police who will simply confiscate the cash, because anything over the same limits they can assume is "proceeds of crime". Sure, you can go to court and try and get it back, and some have succeeded, makes your lawyer a lot richer though, and is not exactly anonymous...
In theory, you can still carry cash, and make transactions, over the threshold level, but in practice you risk being considered a criminal for doing it, and effectively you cannot do it anonymously [which was the aim of the laws].
In the Netherlands, a man was recently controlled by police ( routine identity control, the police need not even give a reason for the control, but that is another chapter of the nascent-police-state discussion ). He carried € 30,000 in a plastic bag with him, and could not provide immediate proof for the money's origin. He was arrested. Only after a couple of day, when nobody could prove the money's illegal origin, he was released. Without the money, which remained at the police precincts. Injustice ? Yes. Police state ? Yes. But this anecdote adds another bit of momentum to Stallman's plea.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace