You do know HK had an different government than communist China, no? That recently lost its independence but is still mostly functioning. Most Americans I talk to seem oblivious to this
It's not doxing if they are state sponsored criminals. That is a horrible misuse of the term. You do not remove evidence of criminals indentity. That's a crime in itself. You are complicit in the crime by coving it up
Not doing any KYC/AML with that kind of volumes can't really be seen as competent by any standards. Of course customers love it when KYC procedures are not needed, but from their own perspective they should have tried at least some basic covering of their own ass by investing in compliance.
From the US point of view. The problem is that US gov is expanding their laws as crossbordering. E.g. if I don't work with american people at all and do service with less regulations requirements I can be still charged and extradited to US prison because "SOME Americans could lie both to me AND American gov and use fake data and VPNs". That's a nonsense for today global world and slowing down lots of developing countries. Current world should revise extradition laws and US intervention in non-US citizens businesses.
KYC/AML is a nonsense for virtual-currency exchange, it is nominal and trifling irritation for the end user, since you can use simply use another persons "verified" account as a proxy-account for your trades as I expect many do for the purposes of privacy.
Whether KYC/AML laws make sense is totally beside the point. That's like saying because cannabis being illegal makes no sense, therefore it makes sense to sell cannabis publicly in large quantities and not comply with any laws.
I understand this, but what I mean by this is that the infringement then is logically also small since the quantifiable infraction is in reality small compared to those whom the officials deem to be compliant.
They are charging the owners of a non American company that banned most Americans with violating US banking laws. Even tho Bitmex never used a US bank, is not a US company and only used bitcoin for transactions
While the US does love exporting our/their rule of law outside, the internet creates an interesting problem with jurisdiction. By serving customers in the US, have they subjected themselves to US law?[a] Many times before, the courts have found that an American company doing business in State X meant they could be sued there. But they’ve also found otherwise. It’s an interesting question that doesn’t seem to have a clear answer.
[a] When visiting another country, it’s very clear you’re subjecting yourself to their laws (I can’t visit France and expect only US laws will apply to me), but the internet (a global system) poses a problem.
They did there job and did it well. What users were happy? I thought US govt was saving as from bitmex? The US govt criminals charges against the owners is a disgusting overreach
Bitcoin miners are the ones that use the energy calculating the SHA256 functional. The cost of the function is not relevant to energy use as competition between miners means the energy used will match the value of the block reward.
This optimizing is for the users of the bitcoin network that must validate that the rules are being followed so they can reject any miners that do not follow the consensus rules
People's negative reaction to this comment believe is that new languages can only solve so many problems. Doesn't matter how great Rust is. So the idea of pushing a new languages too much gets bad reactions.
