anon_trader

There’s no way in which IPv6 is less private than IPv4

With IPv4 behind CGNAT you share an address with hundreds of other users. This won't protect you against a targeted subpoena, but tracking companies typically don't have this kind of power, so they have to resort to other fingerprinting options.

On the other hand, an IPv6 address is effectively a unique, and somewhat persistent, tracking ID, 48/56/64-bit long (ISP dependent), concatenated with some random garbage. And of course every advertiser, every tracking company and their dog know which part is random garbage; you are not going to fool anyone by rotating it with privacy extensions.

I guess this will just mean even more mandatory apps with hardware-backed backdoor crap like SafetyNet et al., in the hopeless witch hunt for emulators. And of course, installing a custom ROM or otherwise degoogling will be considered criminal-like behavior not long from now.

Look at the payment card industry: the whole system is fundamentally broken by design and has zero meaningful privacy and security since its inception, yet it somehow survives, decade by decade, with more and more layers of bureaucratic band-aid.

There is a difference between "evil" and "ineffective", and while I agree with the more controversial "evil" part, my point was to emphasize the "ineffective" part of it.

I won't go into further details even under anonymous account, but I have some first-hand experience dealing with compliance from various financial institutions, I have a general idea of what they ask, what they do NOT ask, and all of this feels much like IP address logging or so-called "chain analysis": it may work against unprepared people (mostly those who "have nothing to hide"), but is almost trivially bypassable by any semi-motivated attacker.

Mostly it's because incentives are completely off. These people are not the police; their top priority is to cover their asses with enough paperwork, not actively engage in yet another anti-whatever crusade.

Thank you.

I preferred to register a throwaway for obvious privacy reasons, immediately got shadowbanned, and while I refrained from posting the actual article link [1] that I mentioned, that did not really help.

[1] (Russian) https://vc.ru/relife/928248-50-bankov-kotorye-chashche-vsego...

While crypto might not be the ideal solution, it's hard to not notice that modern AML/KYC banking laws are rapidly degrading into complete bullshit, and it is nice to have a workaround.

I've just read an article how Russian emigrants around the world (that's up to several million people, more than some European countries) are struggling with opening and maintaining bank accounts, and have to resort to all kinds of workarounds, crypto and Binance included. You might not have any sympathy for them, especially in current circumstances, but they did nothing wrong, and won't cease to exist just because of your lack of sympathy.

Where I live now, there is a growing number of street currency exchange shops which will gladly and openly accept your USDT and hand over cash in either local currency or USD $100 bills; no documents ever asked, of course. That kind of infrastructure did not exist a mere couple years ago.

You might think, why don't just ban it all, but, I'll say it again, the problem with this line of thinking is that if you, as the government, declare large enough numbers of mostly innocent people criminal or "undesirable", they won't magically vanish into thin air overnight; to the contrary, you've just made life harder for your own law enforcement, as real criminals will now have a much larger crowd to blend in.

For many countries where it is difficult to legally buy or transfer USD at international market rates (either because of sanctions or capital controls), there is a thriving USD/USDT/BTC black market, involving, in extreme cases, the majority of population; see Argentina or Venezuela for example. Labeling all of them as "criminals" achieves you nothing.