Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Presumably this is to prevent donations to Reform ?" Nope… it’s about transparency… Since any donation over 10000 pounds a person has to be legally named, and crypto is by definition untraceable it goes against transparency The other proposal of a £100000 pound limit on personal donations is another proposal I would absolutely support! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the new rules don't go anywhere near far enough .... but it is a start i suppose" . I agree. All donations to any party, of any amount, should be banned. Remove the money from the politics. Remove the abuse of power and corruption. Remove the ability of those with money to influence politics to their personal whims. This would create a level playing field for all parties, and then the focus is on the politics itself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Presumably this is to prevent donations to Reform ? Nope… it’s about transparency… Since any donation over 10000 pounds a person has to be legally named, and crypto is by definition untraceable it goes against transparency The other proposal of a £100000 pound limit on personal donations is another proposal I would absolutely support! " Transparency, lol. Like all the personal donations to Starmer which were only revealed by journalists after the election? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'Labour Together, a pro-Starmer thinktank led by Morgan McSweeney from 2017–2020, failed to report approximately £740,000 in donations within the legally required 30 days. Transparency "Moving the goalposts a bit as the rules you originally ranted about apply to individuals…. But I don’t expect you to know that ( or more likely you do but neglected to mention it) But since you want to open this Pandora’s box Nigel Farage on numerous occasions has been warned by parliament for not declaring interests in the public members book within the relevant time allowed… ….. in fact Reform UK famously refused to reveal their donor list for years as they were classed as a business rather than a political party to Circumvent the law, So your point being? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'Labour Together, a pro-Starmer thinktank led by Morgan McSweeney from 2017–2020, failed to report approximately £740,000 in donations within the legally required 30 days. Transparency
Moving the goalposts a bit as the rules you originally ranted about apply to individuals…. But I don’t expect you to know that ( or more likely you do but neglected to mention it)
But since you want to open this Pandora’s box Nigel Farage on numerous occasions has been warned by parliament for not declaring interests in the public members book within the relevant time allowed…
….. in fact Reform UK famously refused to reveal their donor list for years as they were classed as a business rather than a political party to Circumvent the law,
So your point being?
"Ah so this is just an anti Reform idea from a Govt that's broken every rule going on donations.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'Labour Together, a pro-Starmer thinktank led by Morgan McSweeney from 2017–2020, failed to report approximately £740,000 in donations within the legally required 30 days. Transparency
Moving the goalposts a bit as the rules you originally ranted about apply to individuals…. But I don’t expect you to know that ( or more likely you do but neglected to mention it)
But since you want to open this Pandora’s box Nigel Farage on numerous occasions has been warned by parliament for not declaring interests in the public members book within the relevant time allowed…
….. in fact Reform UK famously refused to reveal their donor list for years as they were classed as a business rather than a political party to Circumvent the law,
So your point being?
Ah so this is just an anti Reform idea from a Govt that's broken every rule going on donations."No…… in all of those cases…… it is about that word you mentioned…… Transparency Farage was not “transparent” in declaring his interests in the parliament members book of interests Reform UK were not “transparent” and declaring who funded them by using a loophole that they were registered as a business rather than a political party My god “p” you can be so obtuse at times, and you actually think you are being smart and think we don’t see through what you do! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Last year Christopher Harborne, a Crypto billionaire based in Thailand, donated £12m to Reform UK (out of a total £18m donated). The changes that were enacted by Labour yesterday, the £100,000 limit for overseas residents and the complete ban on Crypto donations. It becomes very obvious exactly who these changes were aimed at. The Tories supported these changes, not surprising as Christopher Harborne was giving them similar amounts of money until he defected to Reform UK." Have no issue with them banning crypto donations The whole point of crypto is that the blockchain uses is untraceable… so who are we to know who a donation is from Unless you want them to say “oooh 10k hit Our account from crypto wallet x , we have no idea of who it is and whether the money was legitimately obtained “ but heck we will use it anyway! Think about it… why do you think “bad actors “ always want their ransom paid in crypto? Because once it hits an account everything after that is virtually untraceable Bank payments are traceable | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Have no issue with them banning crypto donations The whole point of crypto is that the blockchain uses is untraceable… so who are we to know who a donation is from" That's not accurate. The whole point of crypto is that it *is* traceable. Every single coin movement can be traced from one wallet to another, and that's how it gets its integrity - from every user being able to check for themselves that a specific transaction was or wasn't performed. It's only anonymous because anyone can set up a wallet by themselves and they aren't registered. I'd have no problem with crypto donations being acceptable on the condition that the donor declares them in advance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour has received over £5m from Dale Vince whose money comes almost entirely from Govt subsidies to renewable energy. The Govt has also overruled local planning objections to allow Vince to build huge solar parks on prime farm land. More 'transparency' at work. "You are literally all over the place “p”… you keep spouting different excuses for the topic that is not being discussed….. Just admit you don’t have a clue about the actual topic and bow out gracefully… we won’t think less of you! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour has received over £5m from Dale Vince whose money comes almost entirely from Govt subsidies to renewable energy. The Govt has also overruled local planning objections to allow Vince to build huge solar parks on prime farm land. More 'transparency' at work.
You are literally all over the place “p”… you keep spouting different excuses for the topic that is not being discussed…..
Just admit you don’t have a clue about the actual topic and bow out gracefully… we won’t think less of you! "Would you like to correct my figures ? You raised the importance of transparency and a £1m limit on donations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems Labour Party finances in a mess. Heading for a deficit in 2026. Presumably want every other party to run a deficit too. Socialism in action." Labour like the Tories have taken millions from foreign donors, now that's dried up it's suddenly a problem. A little like the elections they tried to cancel or the social media they want to shut down. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Have no issue with them banning crypto donations The whole point of crypto is that the blockchain uses is untraceable… so who are we to know who a donation is from That's not accurate. The whole point of crypto is that it *is* traceable. Every single coin movement can be traced from one wallet to another, and that's how it gets its integrity - from every user being able to check for themselves that a specific transaction was or wasn't performed. It's only anonymous because anyone can set up a wallet by themselves and they aren't registered. I'd have no problem with crypto donations being acceptable on the condition that the donor declares them in advance." No it can't. It is completely anonymous. That's why it's favoured by drug dealers , gun smugglers and all around wrong uns. Tell me who placed the 500m on trump going to war? Explain to us like we're 5 what Polymarket is? Who controls it? How you place bets? How do we trace those bets? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Explain to us like we're 5 what Polymarket is? Who controls it? How you place bets? How do we trace those bets?" A place where people put money on what they think will happen—and the prices show collective belief. . Polymarket controls what questions are asked. The blockchain money thrown at those questions (yes or no) highlights potential outcomes. Or more likely, "beliefs and convictions". . Every transaction is public. But the holders of crypto wallets are often anonymous. . The big investors (called "whales") do move market prices, and this creates self-reinforcing momentum. Whales do tend to be watched very closely however for obvious reasons. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The whole point of crypto is that the blockchain uses is untraceable… so who are we to know who a donation is from" "That's not accurate. The whole point of crypto is that it *is* traceable. Every single coin movement can be traced from one wallet to another, and that's how it gets its integrity - from every user being able to check for themselves that a specific transaction was or wasn't performed. It's only anonymous because anyone can set up a wallet by themselves and they aren't registered." "No it can't. It is completely anonymous." You're confusing traceability and anonymity. If a man robs a bank wearing a mask he's anonymous, we don't know who he is. But the bank's cameras will show how he entered the building, and the street cameras will allow us to follow his journey. He's traceable. Crypto currencies are fully traceable. They have to be otherwise people could just invent their own deposits, and no one else would be able to check them. Crypto wallets are anonymous, we don't know who is holding the currency that we have traced. "Explain to us like we're 5 what Polymarket is?" I could do that, but since Polymarket isn't a blockchain-based crypto currency, it's not relevant to the discussion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The anonymity part is surely the problem. We ought to know whether or not Reform is being bankrolled by Elon Musk or some other mega donor who wants to influence UK politics for their own benefit." Agreed. That's why I said above that we should allow crypto currency donations, but only if they are pre-announced publicly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If there is no way of finding out the source of the funding, how would we know if any announcement is legit?" It's how the system works right now. A donor tells a party that they will be making a donation, and then funds arrive by bank transfer. The parties have no way of verifying that the funds came from the correct account, so they just take the donor's word for it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political parties are only supposed to accept donations from “permissible donors”. With a bank transfer they are able to see the donors account details, are expected to perform reasonable checks and more importantly can be audited to ensure they are complying with regulations. Surely all that goes out the window with an anonymous donor." They aren't able to see the donor's bank details. All you get with a deposit is a "reference", and the donor can write whatever they like in that box. The police could trace back to a specific account, but the political parties don't have that ability, so they just believe what the reference tells them. For larger donations the donor will already have been in touch to tell them that it's coming, so they'll know who it's from when it arrives. Under my proposal crypto donations would be slightly less anonymous as the donor would be announcing the donation publicly, so the party can't cover it up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The whole point of crypto is that the blockchain uses is untraceable… so who are we to know who a donation is from That's not accurate. The whole point of crypto is that it *is* traceable. Every single coin movement can be traced from one wallet to another, and that's how it gets its integrity - from every user being able to check for themselves that a specific transaction was or wasn't performed. It's only anonymous because anyone can set up a wallet by themselves and they aren't registered. No it can't. It is completely anonymous. You're confusing traceability and anonymity. If a man robs a bank wearing a mask he's anonymous, we don't know who he is. But the bank's cameras will show how he entered the building, and the street cameras will allow us to follow his journey. He's traceable. Crypto currencies are fully traceable. They have to be otherwise people could just invent their own deposits, and no one else would be able to check them. Crypto wallets are anonymous, we don't know who is holding the currency that we have traced. Explain to us like we're 5 what Polymarket is? I could do that, but since Polymarket isn't a blockchain-based crypto currency, it's not relevant to the discussion." It does mainly only accept cryptocurrencies | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The recipient's bank can most definitely see the source - it's part of their existing money laundering obligations." Yes, the bank can see the source account but the political party receiving the donation can't, and it's the party that has to register the donation. The bank isn't allowed to pass on the donor's account details, so the party has to rely on whatever is written in the 'reference'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The recipient's bank can most definitely see the source - it's part of their existing money laundering obligations. Yes, the bank can see the source account but the political party receiving the donation can't, and it's the party that has to register the donation. The bank isn't allowed to pass on the donor's account details, so the party has to rely on whatever is written in the 'reference'." Under the rules of the Electoral Commission, parties must: Identify the donor. Confirm they are a permissible source. Obtain Company registration details (if applicable). If they can’t do that they are supposed to refuse or return the donation The idea that they are limited to “whatever is written in the reference” is bollocks. Still not seeing how an announcement about a crypto donation is going to do anything worthwhile. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Under the rules of the Electoral Commission, parties must: Identify the donor. Confirm they are a permissible source. Obtain Company registration details (if applicable). If they can’t do that they are supposed to refuse or return a donation The idea that they are limited to “whatever is written in the reference” is bollocks." OK then, how do you think it works? Given that the bank isn't allowed to give out details of the donor's account, how do you think the UK's political parties verify the source of a donation? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Under the rules of the Electoral Commission, parties must: Identify the donor. Confirm they are a permissible source. Obtain Company registration details (if applicable). If they can’t do that they are supposed to refuse or return a donation The idea that they are limited to “whatever is written in the reference” is bollocks. OK then, how do you think it works? Given that the bank isn't allowed to give out details of the donor's account, how do you think the UK's political parties verify the source of a donation?" They start by looking at the account and sort code of the donor as it appears on their statement. They work with the banks and their increased levels of visibility and flag suspicious activity. It's far from perfect but how can any of that happen with a completely anonymous donor? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK then, how do you think it works? Given that the bank isn't allowed to give out details of the donor's account, how do you think the UK's political parties verify the source of a donation?" "They start by looking at the account and sort code of the donor as it appears on their statement. They work with the banks and their increased levels of visibility and flag suspicious activity." Have you looked at your bank statements recently? You'll find that they don't show the sort code or account number of payments made into your account. Even if they did, what use is that? The sort code is searchable and might give you a clue if it's from a non-UK bank, but what can you do with an account number? There's no way of tracing that back to a person. (Again, the banks and the police can do this, but political parties can't.) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK then, how do you think it works? Given that the bank isn't allowed to give out details of the donor's account, how do you think the UK's political parties verify the source of a donation? They start by looking at the account and sort code of the donor as it appears on their statement. They work with the banks and their increased levels of visibility and flag suspicious activity. Have you looked at your bank statements recently? You'll find that they don't show the sort code or account number of payments made into your account. Even if they did, what use is that? The sort code is searchable and might give you a clue if it's from a non-UK bank, but what can you do with an account number? There's no way of tracing that back to a person. (Again, the banks and the police can do this, but political parties can't.)" Exactly, so if they wanted to make sure they haven't got money from a gangster they could That isn't available in crypto, hence why they've paused it. Why would you want to transaction your money anonymously unless it had dodgy origins | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK then, how do you think it works? Given that the bank isn't allowed to give out details of the donor's account, how do you think the UK's political parties verify the source of a donation? They start by looking at the account and sort code of the donor as it appears on their statement. They work with the banks and their increased levels of visibility and flag suspicious activity. Have you looked at your bank statements recently? You'll find that they don't show the sort code or account number of payments made into your account. Even if they did, what use is that? The sort code is searchable and might give you a clue if it's from a non-UK bank, but what can you do with an account number? There's no way of tracing that back to a person. (Again, the banks and the police can do this, but political parties can't.)" I don't know what bank you use but my transfers absolutely show the account and sort code. As said, it's far from perfect as a donor's account isn't necessarily the unitial source of the money, but that sort of analysis is exactly what UK banks do. They report suspicious activity on a huge scale and thousands of those become criminal cases. Do you think that analysis becomes easier or harder to do if the transaction is in the form of crypto? How will making an announcement fix that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK Why would you want to transaction your money anonymously unless it had dodgy origins " It's a question that Slippery Nigel doesn't address when touting his "crypto friendly" policies | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Have you looked at your bank statements recently? You'll find that they don't show the sort code or account number of payments made into your account." "Even if they did, what use is that? The sort code is searchable and might give you a clue if it's from a non-UK bank, but what can you do with an account number? There's no way of tracing that back to a person. (Again, the banks and the police can do this, but political parties can't.)" "Exactly, so if they wanted to make sure they haven't got money from a gangster they could" You're not reading my words correctly, I've just explained that they can't. The banks could perform the check, but they aren't allowed to pass those details out to anyone else. The police could perform the check, but they are only allowed to do that if a crime is suspected, and giving money to a political party isn't a crime. The political parties recieving the donations cannot make any checks based on the donor's account number. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Have you looked at your bank statements recently? You'll find that they don't show the sort code or account number of payments made into your account. Even if they did, what use is that? The sort code is searchable and might give you a clue if it's from a non-UK bank, but what can you do with an account number? There's no way of tracing that back to a person. (Again, the banks and the police can do this, but political parties can't.) Exactly, so if they wanted to make sure they haven't got money from a gangster they could You're not reading my words correctly, I've just explained that they can't. The banks could perform the check, but they aren't allowed to pass those details out to anyone else. The police could perform the check, but they are only allowed to do that if a crime is suspected, and giving money to a political party isn't a crime. The political parties recieving the donations cannot make any checks based on the donor's account number." So, on this basis, the ill gotten gains check when buying a house is not worth doing? The point is, that IF ill gotten money was received by a party it could hypothetically be traced by the bank for the police. That is NOT an option with cryptocurrency | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" don't know what bank you use but my transfers absolutely show the account and sort code." I use First Direct, but I've never seen a UK bank provide this information. I'd be interested to hear which bank you use. "As said, it's far from perfect as a donor's account isn't necessarily the unitial source of the money, but that sort of analysis is exactly what UK banks do. They report suspicious activity on a huge scale and thousands of those become criminal cases." Agreed, the banks can do that sort of analysis, but they aren't allowed to pass the results of that outside the bank (except to the police). Political parties can't use the banks to help them decide whether a donation is correctly sourced or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" don't know what bank you use but my transfers absolutely show the account and sort code. I use First Direct, but I've never seen a UK bank provide this information. I'd be interested to hear which bank you use. As said, it's far from perfect as a donor's account isn't necessarily the unitial source of the money, but that sort of analysis is exactly what UK banks do. They report suspicious activity on a huge scale and thousands of those become criminal cases. Agreed, the banks can do that sort of analysis, but they aren't allowed to pass the results of that outside the bank (except to the police). Political parties can't use the banks to help them decide whether a donation is correctly sourced or not." That's not the point! The point is that banks do checks to make sure money is "safe" all along the process so when parties recieving the money they know it's legit. That's simply not possible when cryptocurrency is involved | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The banks could perform the check, but they aren't allowed to pass those details out to anyone else. The police could perform the check, but they are only allowed to do that if a crime is suspected, and giving money to a political party isn't a crime. The political parties recieving the donations cannot make any checks based on the donor's account number." "So, on this basis, the ill gotten gains check when buying a house is not worth doing?" The financial checks that solicitors perform involve you providing bank statements to prove that the account is yours. If those statements show large sums arriving, the solicitor will ask to see other statements to prove where they came from. Solicitors do not contact the banks and ask them to do further checks, because the banks would refuse. "The point is, that IF ill gotten money was received by a party it could hypothetically be traced by the bank for the police." Only if a crime were suspected, and donating to a political party is not a crime. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The banks could perform the check, but they aren't allowed to pass those details out to anyone else. The police could perform the check, but they are only allowed to do that if a crime is suspected, and giving money to a political party isn't a crime. The political parties recieving the donations cannot make any checks based on the donor's account number. So, on this basis, the ill gotten gains check when buying a house is not worth doing? The financial checks that solicitors perform involve you providing bank statements to prove that the account is yours. If those statements show large sums arriving, the solicitor will ask to see other statements to prove where they came from. Solicitors do not contact the banks and ask them to do further checks, because the banks would refuse. The point is, that IF ill gotten money was received by a party it could hypothetically be traced by the bank for the police. Only if a crime were suspected, and donating to a political party is not a crime." Exactly, so if Joe bloggs was to be found to have made his money in Columbia through drugs and guns banks could eventually trace that money from Joe to the party That's not an option with cryptocurrency | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point is that banks do checks to make sure money is "safe" all along the process so when parties recieving the money they know it's legit." Banks do lots of checks to attempt to spot criminal activity, but those checks are necessarily limited and they don't ensure that any given transaction is "safe". But that isn't relevant because this new restriction isn't about criminality, it's been brought in to prevent anonymous donations, and the banks can't help with that. The banks can see where the funds came from, and the political parties know who is claiming to have donated it, but neither of them know both bits of information so neither of them can do any checking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point is that banks do checks to make sure money is "safe" all along the process so when parties recieving the money they know it's legit. Banks do lots of checks to attempt to spot criminal activity, but those checks are necessarily limited and they don't ensure that any given transaction is "safe". But that isn't relevant because this new restriction isn't about criminality, it's been brought in to prevent anonymous donations, and the banks can't help with that. The banks can see where the funds came from, and the political parties know who is claiming to have donated it, but neither of them know both bits of information so neither of them can do any checking." Exactly, banks do lots of checks. So the money is "trusted". That isn't the case with cryptocurrency | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Exactly, so if Joe bloggs was to be found to have made his money in Columbia through drugs and guns banks could eventually trace that money from Joe to the party That's not an option with cryptocurrency" If Joe Bloggs were found to have made his crypto holdings from an illegal source, that wallet could be traced through the blockchain and any money sent to political parties could be discovered. But the police wouldn't bother because donating money to a political party isn't a crime. Even if the money comes from criminality, it can't be recovered if it was passed over as a legitimate donation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My NatWest account shows A/C and S/C details for every incoming bank transfer." Thanks for the information. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Exactly, so if Joe bloggs was to be found to have made his money in Columbia through drugs and guns banks could eventually trace that money from Joe to the party That's not an option with cryptocurrency If Joe Bloggs were found to have made his crypto holdings from an illegal source, that wallet could be traced through the blockchain and any money sent to political parties could be discovered. But the police wouldn't bother because donating money to a political party isn't a crime. Even if the money comes from criminality, it can't be recovered if it was passed over as a legitimate donation." No it can't, once money is in cryptocurrency it can transfer from account to account multiple times and there's no trace of origin. It's why it is so liked by dodgy characters grifting for gullibles | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If Joe Bloggs were found to have made his crypto holdings from an illegal source, that wallet could be traced through the blockchain and any money sent to political parties could be discovered. But the police wouldn't bother because donating money to a political party isn't a crime. Even if the money comes from criminality, it can't be recovered if it was passed over as a legitimate donation." "No it can't, once money is in cryptocurrency it can transfer from account to account multiple times and there's no trace of origin." I don't know how many times I have to keep pointing out that you're wrong. If the blockchain weren't traceable anyone could just invent deposits into their wallets, and no one would be able to check if they were genuine or not. The whole way that the system works is that every single transaction is recorded into the blockchain, and is forever traceable by anyone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If Joe Bloggs were found to have made his crypto holdings from an illegal source, that wallet could be traced through the blockchain and any money sent to political parties could be discovered. But the police wouldn't bother because donating money to a political party isn't a crime. Even if the money comes from criminality, it can't be recovered if it was passed over as a legitimate donation. No it can't, once money is in cryptocurrency it can transfer from account to account multiple times and there's no trace of origin. I don't know how many times I have to keep pointing out that you're wrong. If the blockchain weren't traceable anyone could just invent deposits into their wallets, and no one would be able to check if they were genuine or not. The whole way that the system works is that every single transaction is recorded into the blockchain, and is forever traceable by anyone. " Bro, the whole point is that they don't want money coming in to politics that they do not trust! They can not trust the money from cryptocurrency because it can not be traced | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can not trust the money from cryptocurrency because it can not be traced" I give up. You're clearly incapable of understanding the difference between traceability and anonymity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They cannot trust the money thay comes in from crypto because by it's nature, it is anonymous. Happy?" That's accurate. But as I've pointed out, the new restrictions are intended to "add transparency", but bank account numbers are equally anonymous to the political parties, so the current system isn't any more trustworthy than crypto with announcements would be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And probably all foreign donations banned." All foreign donations are already banned, but British citizens that live abroad can donate. That's the group that the new restrictions apply to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting to see that billionaire Ben Delo, who previously donated £4 million to Reform from Hong Kong, is moving back to the UK to continue funding Reform. Wonder what Labour’s next move will be. Maybe banning British people from returning to the UK at all, or banning them from making donations to political parties for ten years after they return (unless it’s to Labour). It’s amazing what happens when governments impose rules. People just change their behaviour to get around them. Who knew." Hard to believe a Starmer policy ends up in embarrassing failure. Hopefully he'll get some lessons in good governance from his visits to Iraq and Syria. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
