Digital Money: Privacy and Law - The Proper Balance

The hottest debate in the digital money space today is the question of traders’ privacy v. law enforcement. It seems that every proposed solution is tilting one side or another. BitMint LeVeL was designed after articulating a fundamental principle to resolve this dilemma. This principle says:

Enforcement is a money matter, Privacy is a people matter

Which suggests that law enforcement should focus on the digital coins out there, not on the people who own them. If a one million dollar digital coin was paid by a victim of ransomware to an unknown blackmailer, then law enforcement should black-list this coin, minding not who has it. The promise of digital money is hinged on public exposure of the circulating coins along with public discretion as to who is in possession of each coin. It is diametrically opposite to regular banks where you know the identity of the customers, but not their bank accounts. This exposure of digital coin allows a proper trading authority to mark any coin as untraceable. The unknown owner of that coin will lose it since no one in the market will accept this coin for money, because it was marked as no good.

This idea allows one to apply unbreakable encryption to the ownership connection. Cryptography is pivoting now to a new era where secrets can be readily secured with mathematical certainty even when facing an omnipotent attacker. We can guarantee privacy and we can black-ball bad coins.

Who would decide on black-balling?

This is different for different societies. in a proper democracy only a competent court of law will have the power to declare a digital coin as not good for trade. If a coin is so marked in error then the owner of the coin will have the option to expose his identity and prove in a court of law why he has full rights to this money and the court will remove the black listing if convinced.

This is the BitMintl solution, talk to us about details