Risk/AML score

[BenCodie]

However, I find that the AML score gives different and varied results from one service to another. Are these results accurate, especially since most of them are generated by artificial intelligence? Can it be relied upon to bring charges or acquit people, since they may lead to criminal charges, or is this not possible as they are based on random results or inaccurate.

Classifying something as a part of money of ML is too vague. So, the number can easily be inflated.

For example, one known suspicipious activity worth $1,000 could transmit innocently to over 100 people after the initial problem transaction, after that, that could be counted as $100,000 of transfers related to ML.

One service might classify it as $1,000, others might classify it anywhere between $1k and $100k depending on their "algorithm".

The truth is that AML is a very hard task and it will take a lot of privacy limiting measures to make it more accurate. If we ever get to a stage where every coin can be identified and traced, privacy will be completely eliminated.

TLDR: Results will always be inaccurate, at least until privacy is dead. AML accuracy can't exist while privacy still exists to any extent.

[BlackHatCoiner]

One service might classify it as $1,000, others might classify it anywhere between $1k and $100k depending on their "algorithm".

Totally. According to this mixer, it has been noticed that a "100% tainted" bitcoin mixed with a "clean" bitcoin produces a "50% risk" bitcoin. Often times, we observe centralized exchanges acquiring "tainted" coins and then deeming them "clean". These are just examples of completely subjective interpretation of money laundering "risk" they enforce.

TLDR: Results will always be inaccurate, at least until privacy is dead.

On the extreme scenario that there is zero privacy, then their software source code is neither private, so we can all see how their accuracy function works, which is the first step to devaluing it.

[Dunamisx]

Aren't we the ones that are giving the government more effective use of their power towards the centralized entities that uses bitcoin, such as exchages through the information we drop with them, they trace and track us, this is why we should also avoid the use of a centr exchage at all cost, when people aren't using exchages like that anymore, i wonder what they will be chasing after anymore from them as most people uses a non custodial wallet for their bitcoin.

[BenCodie]

One service might classify it as $1,000, others might classify it anywhere between $1k and $100k depending on their "algorithm".

Totally. According to this mixer, it has been noticed that a "100% tainted" bitcoin mixed with a "clean" bitcoin produces a "50% risk" bitcoin. Often times, we observe centralized exchanges acquiring "tainted" coins and then deeming them "clean". These are just examples of completely subjective interpretation of money laundering "risk" they enforce.

Now that you say that, it reminds me of a theory I had once, now somewhat validated by this post, to do with the possibility that Centralized exchanges have found a way to benefit from this AML score garbage. They might even be affiliates with some of these mixers, as I still am baffled to this day as to how mixers can use centralized exchanges with so much volume, while bypassing the "aml score" upon depositing funds into exchanges.

TLDR: Results will always be inaccurate, at least until privacy is dead.

On the extreme scenario that there is zero privacy, then their software source code is neither private, so we can all see how their accuracy function works, which is the first step to devaluing it.

That's a very good point, and somewhat comforting as at least the fight will not be over for long in this case. Hopefully not the way things play out though...

[Darker45]

This is almost agreeing to the wrong analyses. It's like saying there are more good people than bad people who use Bitcoin, but most Bitcoin are used by bad people.

I haven't said that I agree with analyses but I'm really mean it when I say that there are more good people than bad people who use bitcoin. Don't you really think that's real? I don't think their calculation of number of coins used for bad activity is correct, that's probably wrong because they often fail with the correctness of their AML score and we don't exactly know how they mark coins bad and wrong. Probably, every coin that went through mixer is marked as bad by them and that gives us a very unfair result.

I'm only reacting because while you said that Bitcoin is used mostly by normal people, you also said that "bad businessmen and government elites have a lot of money and more money is used in illegal activities because of that." That's probably wrong. I understand that business people own money more than the rest of the ordinary people, but I don't think the majority of the business people and their transactions are involved in illegal activities. I'm strongly of the belief that majority of the Bitcoin in circulation is used in legal transactions.

[o_e_l_e_o]

On the extreme scenario that there is zero privacy, then their software source code is neither private, so we can all see how their accuracy function works, which is the first step to devaluing it.

The fact that Chainalysis are fighting so hard in court, using every means available to them, to prevent anyone from even looking at their source code should tell you all you need to know about how accurate it is (i.e. completely made up bullshit). They know if their code is exposed and everyone sees first hand what a scam it is, then their profits tank.

I'm strongly of the belief that majority of the Bitcoin in circulation is used in legal transactions.

If you (not you personally) are going to buy in to the bullshit that blockchain analysis companies peddle and accept their made up analyses, then you also have to accept their figures which show that the amount of bitcoin being used for illicit purposes is miniscule, and a far lower percentage than the amount of fiat being used for illicit purposes.

[shield132]

you also said that "bad businessmen and government elites have a lot of money and more money is used in illegal activities because of that." That's probably wrong. I understand that business people own money more than the rest of the ordinary people, but I don't think the majority of the business people and their transactions are involved in illegal activities. I'm strongly of the belief that majority of the Bitcoin in circulation is used in legal transactions.

What did I say wrong? Isn't more money circulating between criminals than in honest people? And what stops majority of the business people to use bitcoin for illegal activities? What stops terrorists and criminals from using Bitcoin? There are two people: one who uses bank for illegal activities and another one who is more modern and uses bitcoin. More money in this world is owned by criminals compared to average people. More USD is in criminal's hands compared to average people. Exchanges, that hold the biggest bitcoin reserves, are centralized, banks are centralized. What do they have in common? Elites launder money through centralized institutes. Elites have more money than you and me
Btw I want to mention that I don't agree with the given statistics, I don't think their number is correct, I just said that it's not astonishing if many people use Bitcoin for illegal activities because many people use USD, Ruble and Euro for illegal activities and all of their bitcoins gets converted in these currencies.

On the extreme scenario that there is zero privacy, then their software source code is neither private, so we can all see how their accuracy function works, which is the first step to devaluing it.

The fact that Chainalysis are fighting so hard in court, using every means available to them, to prevent anyone from even looking at their source code should tell you all you need to know about how accurate it is (i.e. completely made up bullshit). They know if their code is exposed and everyone sees first hand what a scam it is, then their profits tank.

Chainanalysis are fighting so hard in court because they are funded by rich elites. Rich elites want to control everything and everyone and those who are going under their radar are considered as competitors. It's not hard to guess that their code doesn't work as expected and is a bullshit.

[Darker45]

I'm strongly of the belief that majority of the Bitcoin in circulation is used in legal transactions.

If you (not you personally) are going to buy in to the bullshit that blockchain analysis companies peddle and accept their made up analyses, then you also have to accept their figures which show that the amount of bitcoin being used for illicit purposes is miniscule, and a far lower percentage than the amount of fiat being used for illicit purposes.

In all fairness, however, the problem may not actually be coming from blockchain analysts, or at least not solely from them. The bigger problem is when ignorant, careless, and biased personalities who are anti-Bitcoin through and through use data coming from these analysts without even digesting them, if at all they're capable of it.

I'm citing as an example the Wall Street Journal, particularly their reporters Angus Berwick and Ian Talley. The editors as well for allowing their articles to be published without being carefully verified. They're not only irresponsible in perusing data without understanding their complexities, contexts, and nuances, they're also spreading animosity against Bitcoin to the public. They're privileged individuals because, as media practitioners, they can shape public perception in one way or another.

Case in point as a result of this utter lack of responsibility is the initiative of more than a hundred lawmakers who immediately jumped their gun and cited the reports of these ignorant WSJ reporters in writing a letter to no less than the White House and the US Department of the Treasury that the terrorists Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) have raised millions in crypto before the October 7 attack on Israel.

Elliptic had to set the record straight that "there is no evidence to support the assertion that Hamas has received significant volumes of crypto donations."^[1]

[1] https://www.elliptic.co/blog/setting-the-record-straight-on-crypto-crowdfunding-by-hamas