Easy RhinoBitcoin, ethereum, etc are not anonymous and your transactions on the blockchain can be traced back to you through forensic auditing.

The idea is to receive payments only through crypto, no cash deposits through any exchange/service where your identity can be linked to it. Unless the wallet to which the transfers are being made can be linked to you it's basically impossible for you to be discovered.

And yes, it's value could tank but even in the event of that happening it was probably worth it since you kept your connection to it hidden.

Learn to respectfully disagree, direct your arguments towards the discussion not each other, and behave like adults, or posting privileges will be curtailed.

If people aren't able to be nice and just talk about Bitcoin hitting new highs, then we'll just shut the thread down.. Mods have been in more than they should have, so please be nice, consider this to be a last friendly warning or otherwise I'll bring the clamps in....

Vya DomusThey could be everywhere and it would still not prove that bitcoin is used in any significant manner for actual purchases.

If you look you might be surprised how many shops in do accept bitcoin, my Vega 64 was bought with it from scan.

Vya DomusI am sure that you are aware though that crypto rose in popularity massively in the last few years, it's easy to make it look like criminal related activities have fallen in frequency.

With coin validation and such, no, it's not.

theoneandonlymrkIf you look you might be surprised how many shops in do accept bitcoin, my Vega 64 was bought with it from scan.

I bought my z270 servers mobo off newegg with bitcoin.

Vya DomusAnd also I have to point out the obvious, there is no reliable way to know any of this for sure.

I may have to point out the apparent: you are woefully underinformed on this.

That's not meant as an attack. Most are, afterall.

R-T-BI may have to point out the apparent: you are woefully underinformed on this.

That's not meant as an attack. Most are, afterall.

Lol OK, whatever you say.

Vya DomusLol OK, whatever you say.

No, that's not what I meant at all.

I encourage you to verify my claims.

R-T-BI may have to point out the apparent: you are woefully underinformed on this.

That's not meant as an attack. Most are, afterall.

There are some unanswered questions related to this:
- How thorough were the analyses underpinning the claims of a drop in criminal transactions? Given that the entire point of money laundering is making it not look criminal, and that criminals are always a step or two ahead of the people investigating them in these matters, that is a fundamentally difficult claim to make. The financial "industry" (yes, that term does indeed require quotes) can fundamentally not be trusted to carry out such investigations, as decades of history have shown it to be very friendly towards organized crime and corruption, and entirely incapable of self-regulation and self-policing. It's no wonder - if you're guided by a profit-above-all ideology, saying "no thanks" to further profits just because they happen to come from criminals doesn't make sense. So unless the investigations are carried out by a large team of highly skilled investigators not linked to any for-profit industry actor, they are inherently not trustworthy. Conflicts of interest always affect findings.
- Following from this: if money laundering is the point of the criminal activity, and the investigators in question have a vested interest in legitimizing crypto trade activity, how far are they willing to follow these tracks? Money laundering relies on juggling money around until it's too difficult to tell where it came from in the first place, so how far are investigators fundamentally motivated by disproving criminality willing to follow these tracks? They will inevitably weave in and out of crypto and other currencies after all, and be converted and change hands dozens of times in the process. The opinion piece you linked seemed to draw up a hard line between "criminal" transactions and others, which is questionable given the inevitability of a huge amount of unprovable, gray-area transactions related to money laundering.
- How good a metric is overall transaction volume for determining the degree to which crypto is used for criminal purposes? That poses two further questions: what constitutes a 'criminal' transaction vs. a 'non-criminal' one, and how do estimates like these account for the massively inflated transaction numbers caused by various financial trade practices? (I doubt there's much high speed trading of crypto going on, but likely some, and the more attractive something is as an investment vehicle, the higher the number of transactions will be, without this demonstrating that these transactions are based on legally obtained money.)

ValantarHow thorough were the analyses underpinning the claims of a drop in criminal transactions?

Just look at the source. It's literally nasdaq. It's in their best interest to make it appear as criminal as possible. I'm sure they were quite exhaustive.

R-T-BJust look at the source. It's literally nasdaq. It's in their best interest to make it appear as criminal as possible. I'm sure they were quite exhaustive.

The source is an opinion piece published by Nasdaq, written by a writer fromBitcoin Magazine. It is clearly marked as an opinion piece. And no, Nasdaq has no interest in making it appear as criminal as possible, as an appearance of legality will open up new forms of trade from which they can potentially profit, or might increase the value of companies traded on their exchange. It might even cause the rise of new companies to be listed on their exchange if crypto is seen as a legitimate industry. I mean, you seem to be willfully ignoring the very existence of the concept of conflicts of interest here. Investors and traders are opportunits; if there are new ways of making money, they will jump on them. There is no reason whatsoever to suggest that it is in Nasdaq's interest for crypto to be seen as dubious and a front for criminal activity. So, sorry, but nothing in the sourcing of that article alleviates any worries I might have, not even a little.

Welcome to the wild west, where you're gambling with your money against a mob that can easily influence the value of cryptocurrency. It'll crash when the people who have pumped money into it decide to take it out.

ValantarThe source is an opinion piece published by Nasdaq, written by a writer fromBitcoin Magazine.

This is an excellent point I missed in my examination. Kudos. It brings the whole source into question in a way I did not initially notice. Keen eye you have, apologies for not doing the same.

After seeing the posts PowerPC made on here I'm not even gonna bother with checking this thread again, just sad how every thread has to devolve like this. Just gonna say that I agree with everything Valantar said.

I will note I am not really a gpu mining advocate by any means. I like bitcoins utility as a payment network, but that's the extent of my interest.

sell while you can trolls or decide not to and then prepare to face your worst decision in life later on hehe

Sold my GPU to crypto miner at a high premium. Muhahahaha