Your last sentence is simply wrong.

OK, that would at least be a starting point. Any ideas about European casinos? Do you think that there is chance we might get more integration of cryptocurrency into their operating procedures?

I was thinking something like allowing players to buy chips and cash out directly at the table using crypto. The casino would only need to put a tablet or smartphone on the table with which the dealer can confirm payments made by players, or issue a payout when the player leaves the table.

The trend is moving toward Anti-Money Laundering and prevention of terrorist financing and so, away from what you ask for above.

Do you really mean that you hold your whole roll in BTC and it gives you peace of mind?

Can anyone design a cryptocurrency that actually aids in preventing money laundering?

Good question, but it makes an error common to many regulator discussions of the last 4 years. (I've been talking with online gaming regulators since 2012 and hosted a few industry panels on the topic.)

The short answer is YES.... almost any blockchain technology can be layered with whatever AML/KYC regulations as to the player account-holder, deemed needed to "prevent money-laundering". Remember, tagging an address on the blockchain with an identity creates a traceable record of every coin that passes into or out of that address. 1. Think of Ross Ulbricht, who got identified, in no small part, because reportedly he had publicly disclosed his real name long ago on a gmail email address that later was used for Dread Pirate Roberts related to his Silk Road business. 2. Think of the two federal agents who then looted the Silk Road BTC stockpile for their own gain, again in a manner which tied their loot to their real identities.

Player identity is no more an issue with crypto than with other item of value accepted as a deposit.

The tougher issue may be "source of funds", but again .... a hypothetical player could rob a liquor store, put the cash into his bank account and play pretty much on any regulated site that allows ACH/debit/credit cards to be used for deposits. (The same holds true for gambling in a live casino, where a readily available ATM machine can access cash in a payer's bank account..... to be brought to the tables.

The historic problem has been the tension between gaming operators and financial transaction regulators. This carries over from traditional fiat transactions more recently to crypto transactions.

One of the core tenets of cryptocurrency is the separation of identities from transactions, the antithesis of Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer, so no. Of course it would be possible to implement something, but why?

I prefer to discourage the existence of an unregulated online poker environment. If anonymity is the only benefit of cryptocurrency, then I don't think it is a good idea to support it. If there are other benefits, then perhaps those can be divorced from anonymity.

Try this exercise:

"One of the core tenets of CASH is the separation of identities from transactions, the antithesis of Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer, so no. Of course it would be possible to implement something,but why?"

Because, perhaps, the owner of the cash/crypto wants to use it to play poker on a site which has tons of traffic, good software, great game selection , etc.

The core question is not "Why implement something for that specific use that allows him to spend his crypto?", but "why not?"

I would think that "one of the core tenets" you cite from somewhere might be to allow crypto users the maximum freedom to use their property however they see fit. I don't think a crypto owners should feel intimidated by your notion against using their coins if they need to reveal their identity to do so.

I'll go further, if someone wants to use crypto to buy a car, a house, some intellectual property or anything else which involves registration of ownership post-acquisition, would you think that use violates one of the "core tenets" you reference ?

The crypto markets do not seem to penalize the value of coins which have through "known" owners' hands. Coins are considered largely fungible and their value is independent of their prior usage.

Really, you are not content with simply not playing in an unregulated environment ? You want to prevent other folks from doing so as well ? Why ?

FWIW, "unregulated " does equate to "illegal" any more than unregulated speech necessarily equates to illegal speech. Unregulated "social casinos" do not equate to "illegal" social casinos, unregulated entertainment does not equate to "illegal" entertainment.

I am not content with simply not driving at an unsafe speed. I also want to prevent other folks from driving at an unsafe speed.

Suffice it to say that I am not a libertarian and don't believe in an unregulated economy. I'm not really interested in having a political debate about that. I am curious about whether facets of cryptocurrency can be used to enable a well-regulated online poker environment.

of course they could... and eventually will.

but first step is for leading regulators to publish and then industry to adopt some new technical standards.

Govt's move slowly

Gaming regulators move even slower.

PS. also there is still a "silk road" stigma attched to crypto in the minds of many regulators ( land based and online).

But CASH has a trusted third party centralized regulating authority whereas cryptocurrency does not. The core tenet I cite is the original Bitcoin P2P whitepaper.

I completely agree on maximum freedom to use my property as I see fit, but I find that irreconcilable with anti-money laundering and know your customer.

Edit: yes, one can freely divulge their identity for BTC transactions, and that's fine. One could even maintain several "identities" while divulging some and obscuring others. The point I am addressing is poker funding and cryptocurrency. At least in the United States this is difficult or impossible without anonymity.

Maybe because it's otherwise not possible to make crypto payment viable for poker sites. And crypto definitely has some upsides compared to payment processors (faster, less transaction fees, better security,...).

My idea would be to offer a hybrid solution, i.e. having regular, anonymous crypto wallets that can be used on sites that allow it, or for transferring money to other players. And then players can create a personal wallet that is linked to their identity (using video-ident or something similar) which can be used on poker sites that have stricter rules. This would give us the possibility of offering a limited amount of free transactions (for example, registered users get their first five transactions free of any transaction fees).

Yeah, but I wouldn't even trust that authority as far as I can spit (libertarian ftw). The principle how cryptocurrencies are valued is the same as how fiat money works, there is no gold standard or anything. The only thing that makes such a currency valuable is the belief that you can buy stuff with that money.

And in that respect, I find a cryptocurrency where the amount of coins in circulation is tightly regulated a lot more trustworthy than a fiat money regulated by a central bank who has the authority to issue indefinitely more money as they see fit.

#metoo

.... you presumably also would restrict driving speeds for NASCAR, despite never, ever driving on the track in a race?

Unregulated economic activity is real and highly beneficial to consumers and innovation, whether you believe in it or not. Anyone who plays or wants to play online poker should understand that, but for unregulated economic activity from 2001 to 2006, there would not BE any online poker today.

This is a very significant point and a realization I came to in researching the history of poker and gambling in relation to law. Poker and lotteries etc. were part of the forefront of the colonial expansion that became the US. Part of the venture capital that allowed us to expand into taboo and otherwise economically infeasible spaces (perhaps nevada/vegas etc.).

Bitcoin's initial success is often attributed to "satoshi dice" a primitive gambling platform as there were little other use cases. It's often argued bitcoin has no real value because it has no use cases. They are arguing it in the BFI sub forum. Strange since its a great savior to so many poker players and pros that can't play online otherwise.

The rest of the world doesn't understand the significance in the way that a poker player might. For existing legacy sites however, its a catch 22, it basically breaks the status quo de facto monopoly based on payment processing restrictions and regulations. So its kind of a lose/lose situation.

I support NASCAR having evolving safety policies that may lead to reduced speeds.

I'm fine with gray areas that permit experimentation upon startup, but as online poker grows larger, I think that boundaries need to be set. I don't believe that maximizing innovation or growth of online poker should be the goal. I understand that other people have different beliefs.

No offense but i would prefer my online poker company didn't accept BTC or any other cryptocurrency. Its too volatile. Price can fluctuate from one day to the other. Are there services that are out there that can instantly turn it into cash. Yea but its not like its a regulated service that has oversight. How many cryptocurrency companies have failed!

one just opened up. COin poker only accepting cryptos but not open to usa.

I see that many USA player accepting poker/casino sites accept bitcoins both ways, whether one plays with dollars or not. Neteller accepted deposits in bitcoins as do all the bitcoins wallets (1% fee; and the money isn't safe) that are also places where one can instantly turn them into euros etc. and back up to as many times as one wants it seems. The other poker sites don't seem to use bitcoins in any way. The risks for smaller sites is smaller.

Not in anywhere in Europe. Large unexplained cash deposits into bank accounts are subject to AML regulations. Banks can and will turn away large cash deposits without valid proof of source.

TBH it's UK/EU AML 101, so not sure why anyone would post this????????

Perhaps I misread this and misunderstood what you are trying to say?????

Yah, seems likely considering most cash robberies of liquor stores are prob $200-$500 at most. In the context of what you're saying, "large" would be 5k+ I'd assume.

There's a few hundred BTC on a floppy disk in a drawer somewhere. Won on Seals with Clubs. May have sold the that desk in a garage sale. Oops. Oh well.