California is capping crypto ATM transactions and fees along with creating new licensing requirements for digital financial asset businesses.

New California law limits cash to crypto at ATM machines at $1000 per day per person and also the fees that can be imposed by the machines.

The industry says this will hurt the business, hinting that they’re profiting from the lack of KYC policies

I don’t see any legitimate use from those machines. Who would have a legit need to exchange $15k from cash to crypto at 33% fees???

      •  megopie   ( @megopie@beehaw.org ) 
        2·
        2 years ago

        All it takes is one transaction on a wallet to be concretely connected to you and then every pervious transaction is clearly linked back to you. And that link does not have to be digital, it can be as simple as you being found in person with an item purchase through the system.

        The strength of the encryption and cleverness of the protocols with in the system are irrelevant if there is a public list of transactions.

          •  megopie   ( @megopie@beehaw.org ) 
            2·
            2 years ago

            The way the value of a wallet is calculated is by the sum of previous transactions. For a transaction to be verified, previous transactions must be summed to show a positive balance larger than the payment. That means all previous transactions made by that wallet are publicly available and linkable.

            If they were not, then there would be no way to verify that your wallet had enough value to make a transaction.

            If all transactions are linkable to a wallet, than one real world link can be used to link all previous transactions.

            Ergo, not anonymous.

              •  megopie   ( @megopie@beehaw.org ) 
                2·
                2 years ago

                All transactions are listed on the chain. All transactions can be linked to a wallet to prove the liquidity of the wallet.

                Therefore all previous transactions made by a wallet are public record.

                Not, anonymous.

                •  t3rmit3   ( @t3rmit3@beehaw.org ) 
                  2·
                  2 years ago

                  You are hinging the claim of non-anonymity on a previous transaction on the wallet having linked a real-world person to the wallet, but that is not a given. Additionally, you could simply use a new wallet for each transaction to avoid (or at least massively minimize) this.

                  I don’t like cryptocurrency, but your claim is kinda like saying that TLS between you and your bank is not secure because I shoulder-surfed you. That’s not a failure of TLS (or in this case, their anonymization system), it’s a failure of your own privacy practices.