I feel like this can only be true because you must have defined "launder money" to be any private usage of money (which isn't a sufficient definition of money laundering, to be clear). If you claim otherwise, then you need to be more specific with your reasoning.

To start: why would anyone need privacy--of communication or of shared resources (payment)--but for something illegal? If you have an answer for that for communication (which you claim to and of course should), then it also is the same answer for money.

Do you believe someone should be able to keep secret that they have some medical condition, and that that knowledge should only exist between them and their doctor? Well, fat lot of good that does when the doctor specializes in some specific issue and there is a record of you paying them.

Think it is sufficient to trust the bank, because you think their security and privacy are awesome? Well, that's the same argument for WhatsApp vs. something like Facebook Messenger: no need for end-to-end communication if you are willing to trust people.

> If you have an answer for that for communication (which you claim to and of course should), then it also is the same answer for money.

Not everyone believes that money is a form of speech, current US Court rulings on campaign finance notwithstanding.

FWIW, I didn't just say that and then drop the issue: I provided the step-by-step explanation as to why. I also certainly understand people disagree: that's why I felt the need to leave the comment at all ;P.

Providing infrastructure that money launders could use, or actually do use, is not categorically illegal. But the law establishes certain obligations to try to mitigate money laundering. There are controls you need to implement, expertise you need to have on staff, a level of sophistication that your AML program needs to demonstrate. And there are enforcement regimes with audits and licensing to backstop all that. It is not a free for all.

I am not sure how you expect to implement any of those without undermining the end-to-end nature of the private communication. Can you maybe explain how this would work in the context of the messaging application?

Correct. One of the main anti money laundering controls is Know Your Customer (KYC). Anonymity is not allowed.

False. Here is the definition of money laundering:

  1. The act of engaging in transactions designed to obscure the origin of money that has been obtained illegally.
  2. concealing the source of illegally gotten money

Anyone can use a cryptocurrency mixer with legally obtained cryptocurrency.

Tornado Cash has legitimate, non-criminal use cases.

Anyone can, but realistically, it has probably been used almost exclusively for either laundering money or concealing the source of money used to purchase illegal goods. I can think of pretty much no cases where you would _need_ to convert your money to cryptocurrency, then conceal where it came from using a mixer, and then use it for something legal.

I'm not advocating for the developer to be prosecuted, I'm just saying in the eyes of the law, they probably won't see it in the way you are describing.

  I can think of pretty much no cases where you would _need_ to convert your money to cryptocurrency, then conceal where it came from using a mixer, and then use it for something legal.

See my other comment for a concrete, legal use case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32443842

Why would you need a mixer? If you want to hide it from your friends just send it to a new address and then buy with that address. Who can prove that new address is yours?

Also if your friends then regularly snoop and trace every single one of your transactions so they can laugh at you for your purchases, I wouldn't consider those to be your friends.

I mean fair enough, you have contrived a legal example. Yes, I admit it does have valid use cases, I just don't think they're very common at all.

  Why would you need a mixer? If you want to hide it from your friends just send it to a new address and then buy with that address.

Let’s continue the example. Imagine you use your shiny new NFT as your twitter avatar. Now anyone can see the wallet holding that NFT received funds from wallet x. Wallet x is your main wallet.

Privacy is not bad.

Just because somebody doesn't want to share their transactions with the world it doesn't mean they want to hide them from the authorities too.

I disagree with that, as there are things you may wanna buy without making public you bought, that is still legal. For example, some specialist hobby you'd rather not want others to know about.

Still mostly money laundering though.

Whatsapp has no legitimate uses, being an encrypted app owned by a company that gleefully shares data with like, everybody.

I wonder how contrarians would argue against this..

"Oh, because this blockchain isn't anonymous enough I must use a mixer!"

Imagine for a moment that you wanted to buy an NFT with legally purchased Ethereum from an exchange like Kraken or Coinbase, but you don’t want your friends to know you spent $2,000 on a jpeg. So instead of buying the NFT with your Coinbase wallet that is linked to your [ENS] name, you create a brand new, single-use wallet and use it to buy the jpeg. And instead of funding the single-use wallet from your recognizable wallet, you obfuscate the source with a mixing service.

1. Russian citizens or political figures wanting to donate to friends and family in Ukraine without being prosecuted / jailed / killed.

2. Not wanting to give your entire financial history to every single person you interact with.

Do you like such a privileged life that you can't imagine a government or adversary using knowledge about your finances against you? Do you think Russians trying to help friends and family should be restricted from doing so because Putin says so?