This is almost uniquely stupid even by Richard Murphy’s standards

So what might this be about? Almost nothing, I suggest, unless what is really being considered is the use of blockchain.

And that’s when I got this idea. It’s about creating untraceable money. So here is the Treasury trying to actively undermine HMRC, by the look of it.

The entire point, the distinguishing feature, of the blockchain is that every single unit of it is entirely, wholly and completely traceable back to the very first moment of the Big Satoshi. Exaclty because of the blockchain bitcoin is more traceable than cash.

9 thoughts on “This is almost uniquely stupid even by Richard Murphy’s standards”

  1. Well yes and no. You can see when the Bitcoin is moving, and from where to where, but as the two locations are entirely virtual and anonymous you have no idea who owns it or is moving it. So it is untraceable for tax purposes, or indeed law enforcement. It would be like sticking a radio transmitter on a £50 note and getting back the message ‘£50 note now in location Dyjauhfldfwlfn, having been moved from location hlqhGhuwlhfnqfgG’ Not exactly very helpful as to who you send the tax bill to.

  2. Jim, if that’s true, then Bitcoin is entirely untraceable for only as long as it remains solely within the network.

  3. Not having read the article, I can only suppose he is talking about CBDC.

    A very bad idea of course, because once they become compulsory we are reduced to serfdom.

    Not widely enough realised yet.

    The war on cash is a war to the death to save something of a free society.

  4. Jim is spot on about the identity/anonimity of Bitcoin addresses, but on first reading I thought his example addresses were Welsh towns.

    Ducky: Bitcoin doesn’t leave the “network”. It’s more like one huge shared ledger. You’ve all got your own copy of it but nobody can make a change to it unless most people agree.

  5. Jim: “but as the two locations are entirely virtual and anonymous”

    They can be, but usually aren’t, by a long shot.
    Where crypto interfaces with Real Currency™ you can cross-reference. Wallets are attached to identifiable entities ( may be a burner account, but still identifiable..) . You can inject known blockchains into suspicious streams.
    And there’s always the glob of metadata attached to anything involving the internet.
    LOTS of possibilities for investigative methods. Anyone thinking crypto is anonymous is downright retarded.
    Crims most certainly don’t think so. They simply treat it as a less bulky form of cash. No more, no less. With the whole circus to stay off the radar and all that still necessary and attached.

  6. The transactions are traceable – the identities of the people doing the transactions is not . . . directly traceable.

    You have to match IP’s and metadata whatnot with physical people.

    Which is why when people suggest ‘the blockchain’ for voting I point out that if you don’t tie identities to transactions then there’s nothing stopping someone from, literally, stealing your vote.

    So there goes anonymity in voting.

    And if you don’t – its still possible to tie votes to voters through secondary information sources.

  7. But the Bank of England already has a digital currency. It’s called the Pound Sterling, and I’ve been using it ever since I got a debit card three decades ago. Close to all my transactions in the last year have been via movement of digital information. Yesterday I had to get some non-digital currency for the first time in over a year because the chip shop insisted on cash.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *