Are you saying decentralised exchanges which aren't located in America won't get affected by the bill so it's about Americans who want to exchange cryptos for fiat transfer to their bank accounts?
Not by this specific regulation, but as I said before many other countries are advancing similar pieces of legislation. Any exchange registered within a specific country could still be targeted if they refuse to comply. Hodlhodl for example is based in the UK, so would be easily targeted. AgoraDesk is based in the Seychelles, so is likely to be safer. The only exchanges completely immune to such regulations will be ones which are entirely decentralized, such as Bisq. 
Topic: Bitcoin mixing is NOT money laundering, per se - page 7. (Read 3942 times)
It isn't a secret about the majority of govts wanting to take over control of bitcoin but it won't be easy. Are you saying decentralised exchanges which aren't located in America won't get affected by the bill so it's about Americans who want to exchange cryptos for fiat transfer to their bank accounts?
Is the bill going to apply to American citizen expats the same as it's for residents of America?
It will apply to anyone who interacts with an American based exchange or other service, for now. But we are already seeing other countries start to adopt similar rules, where fully KYCed exchanges will only permit sending and receiving bitcoin from other fully KYCed exchanges. It is quite clear the majority of governments in the world want bitcoin to be entirely contained within a system they have complete power over, and can monitor and control as they desire.Is the bill going to apply to American citizen expats the same as it's for residents of America?
It will apply to anyone who interacts with an American based exchange or other service, for now. But we are already seeing other countries start to adopt similar rules, where fully KYCed exchanges will only permit sending and receiving bitcoin from other fully KYCed exchanges. It is quite clear the majority of governments in the world want bitcoin to be entirely contained within a system they have complete power over, and can monitor and control as they desire. It's true Bitcoin's being used in a different way to what Satoshi would've intended but we've still got a choice how to store cryptos.
After you create an innovation, it can be used in different ways and even in ways you did not imagine.Gun powder, gun are examples of different ways to use an innovation. It can help human civilization or can bring painful experience to many people. A good innovation can be exploited by criminals but it is a different thing.
Criminals are not barriers to shut down human creativeness and innovations made by legendary people like Satoshi Nakamoto. There are always dark areas and wrong usages of any innovation.
It's true Bitcoin's being used in a different way to what Satoshi would've intended but we've still got a choice how to store cryptos. If ppl are holding the power in their hands they'll decide if they want to use exchanges. If ppl get forced by legislation it means they'll lose the choice so it's messed up. If the bill's passed it's going to put Americans off buying cryptos.
Is the bill going to apply to American citizen expats the same as it's for residents of America?
Is the bill going to apply to American citizen expats the same as it's for residents of America?
Now, how many people actually use bitcoin without a trusted third party? Do you buy, sell, or trade on a centralized exchange? Trusted third party. Do you spend your bitcoin via a third party payment processor such as BitPay or Coinbase Commerce? Trusted third party. Do you use a closed source wallet such as Trust or Coinomi? Trusted third party. Does your open source wallet sync with third party servers? Trusted third party.
This legislation will essentially make it illegal just to own your own bitcoin, but most people already use bitcoin in a way which is very different to what Satoshi intended.
This legislation will essentially make it illegal just to own your own bitcoin, but most people already use bitcoin in a way which is very different to what Satoshi intended.
And unfortunately our behavior is at the root of the problem, I find that people love to blame products when it is the user who is responsible for that behavior. What I find funny is that the law enforcement agencies keep pretending that they only see the wrongdoing of these products and blame it.
Investors have made a lot of money in recent years. They also want privacy, namely requiring anonymity when transacting cryptocurrencies to be comfortable, in this case BTC. To do this, this is where they need an intermediary who is willing to do this for them, one of which is a mixing service which of course can be trusted, but this mixing service also has weaknesses of course.
That is, the government can at least see if there is something strange and always wants to intervene in terms of regulations. Well, regarding the legality of mixing services will depend on where the user comes from and the laws that apply there, but I think perhaps these people (Investors) have built in better security and are prepared for the additional costs that will arise.
If the bill passes it's going to make bitcoin a different coin to what Satoshi would've wanted it to be.
For most people, that's already the case.From the start of the whitepaper:
Quote
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.
Now, how many people actually use bitcoin without a trusted third party? Do you buy, sell, or trade on a centralized exchange? Trusted third party. Do you spend your bitcoin via a third party payment processor such as BitPay or Coinbase Commerce? Trusted third party. Do you use a closed source wallet such as Trust or Coinomi? Trusted third party. Does your open source wallet sync with third party servers? Trusted third party.
This legislation will essentially make it illegal just to own your own bitcoin, but most people already use bitcoin in a way which is very different to what Satoshi intended.
If you're living in the US and this bills passes, you should absolutely forget about centralized exchanges, as you may be accused of funding terrorism because of potentially bad coin history. Unless you buy and store all your bitcoin there, which would nullify Bitcoin as concept in the first place, and you shouldn't do it.
If the bill passes it's going to make bitcoin a different coin to what Satoshi would've wanted it to be.it actually says if a service is defined as a CEX then it needs to be regulated.. it does not say all services need to be defined as a CEX
If a store accepts bitcoin and does not keep them in a regulated exchange, it can be considered "obfuscation of destination". If you swap bitcoin for an altcoin and then the altcoin for bitcoin, it can be considered "obfuscation of destination". If you move your bitcoin across your wallets, it can be considered "obfuscation of destination". Anything can be considered to obfuscate unless you report all of your transactions to the government or do everything inside a regulated CEX.
I cannot view this from Tor. It says: "We're sorry, an error has occurred". Does it happen to you too?
Edit: Same thing from web archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20231105052053/https://www.regulations.gov/document/FINCEN-2023-0016-0001
No, works fine for me on Tor.Edit: Same thing from web archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20231105052053/https://www.regulations.gov/document/FINCEN-2023-0016-0001
The archive.org link also loads just fine for me on Tor but does display the error you mentioned in the archived page. This will be a problem with their archiving though, not with Tor.
Edit: Try this link: https://archive.li/sRjmi
What is the current status? Was the proposal been accepted?
It is still open for comment for another 77 days. There are currently 109 publicly posted comments which you can view here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FINCEN-2023-0016-0001/comment. They are unanimously in opposition to this proposed piece of legislation, although I fully expect the government to completely ignore all these comments and opposition. They've never let the interests of the people stand in the way of their tyranny before.I cannot view this from Tor. It says: "We're sorry, an error has occurred". Does it happen to you too?
Edit: Same thing from web archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20231105052053/https://www.regulations.gov/document/FINCEN-2023-0016-0001
What is the current status? Was the proposal been accepted?
It is still open for comment for another 77 days. There are currently 109 publicly posted comments which you can view here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FINCEN-2023-0016-0001/comment. They are unanimously in opposition to this proposed piece of legislation, although I fully expect the government to completely ignore all these comments and opposition. They've never let the interests of the people stand in the way of their tyranny before. This is not good, although it's still a proposal and will be submitted in the next two days, there's a chance they might accept it.
What is the current status? Was the proposal been accepted?
Isn't Fiat more attractive than Bitcoin for criminal activities? You can see there are other intentions besides preventing criminals from using a crypto mixer. With heavy pressure from the government, it's likely centralized mixing services will cease to exist in the future. At least, we won't be left "empty handed". Non-custodial (decentralized) mixers will ensure people get the privacy they deserve without fear of censorship or prosecution. As long as developers stay anonymous, no government will be able to stop people from using these services . I wouldn't be surprised if governments decide to hunt privacy coins next. Who knows if someday it becomes "illegal" to use a privacy-oriented cryptocurrency? 
currency regulations about money service businesses are not new. but governments were slow at understanding bitcoin to know whats a money service business.. and.. people wanting to run money service businesses are slow to realise their service is one
but here is where people need to learn.. by reading regulations. what makes them defined as a MSB and then tailor/customise their service to not be a MSB
if you are literally advertising a service that says its function is to take money in, and for a fee process it and hand it back out.. its obviously not advertising itself as a retailer/merchant. nor a taxi cab loyalty point system.. but advertising its a MSB
so these businesses that want to operate without MSB regulations (while resulting in experience of MSB) need to think smarter.
bitcoin has been known to be a currency and fit in the currency jurisdiction for 10 years. so while still defined as currency in law makers definitions, means businesses have to see if their business fits the currency service business.. or is instead a retailer/merchant/auction/property manager
if bitcoin remained as private property decade ago to now. we would not have to think that hard, as governments wouldnt have a fingers worth of power to point at us
If there was really nothing suspicious about the service mentioned in OP, government must not have taken action against them. When something gets out of hand, then it becomes necessary for government to take action and this is what happened in case of chipmixer.
Everything is always "out of hand" when it involves crypto mixers. After all, governments don't want people to enjoy financial privacy. Now the US Treasury wants to target crypto mixers with the excuse that terrorists will be using them for money laundering. You can read all about it here: https://www.wired.com/story/us-treasury-crypto-mixer-hamas/.
Isn't Fiat more attractive than Bitcoin for criminal activities? You can see there are other intentions besides preventing criminals from using a crypto mixer. With heavy pressure from the government, it's likely centralized mixing services will cease to exist in the future. At least, we won't be left "empty handed". Non-custodial (decentralized) mixers will ensure people get the privacy they deserve without fear of censorship or prosecution. As long as developers stay anonymous, no government will be able to stop people from using these services . I wouldn't be surprised if governments decide to hunt privacy coins next. Who knows if someday it becomes "illegal" to use a privacy-oriented cryptocurrency?
If there was really nothing suspicious about the service mentioned in OP, government must not have taken action against them.
Lol. You think the government only take action against things which are illegal? The government works exclusively for themselves, and will take action against anyone or anything which threatens them, illegal or not. They'll take action against someone who did nothing except write open source code under the guise of tErRoRiSm, but they will ignore fiat banks laundering literally hundreds of billions of dollars for actual terrorist organizations.It is true that Bitcoin mixing is not money laundering, but it can be a tool or instrument to use in money laundering.
And the internet is a tool or instrument in money laundering, and fraud, and terrorism, and lots more. Should be ban the internet as well?
Do you even know what ZK and KYC mean? It is zero knowledge and know your customer. How can you provide a proof that you know your customer if you have zero knowledge about him?
I think i know and i will give you an example . Let's say i want to subscribe into one exchange . Currently i have to send them my national identity or passport , proof of address , phone bill etc . With ZKP i can prove that i'm a citizen of a non banned country but they will never know from which country i am , that i live in my city without showing them my specific address and that i own a telephone number from a company based in the country i live and not an anonymous sim card . In other words i don't have to prove in detail all of my personal info but just prove that i'm eligible to be registered in that exchange .
Seems that you have a misunderstanding of what ZKP's can provide . A video that might help is https://youtu.be/D4iUeVbib_k?t=1141 , i'd suggest to watch it all . Another one close to eli5 is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_ZWNFUHlRQ . Of course , i could provide videos in more detail but these are considered "anathema" here and i won't .
Actually having a bitcoin mixer is good, so it's more private, especially since government regulations usually only impose taxes on crypto holders. Maybe it's small at the moment, but did you know, crypto is increasingly being considered a commodity that has a lot of interest, so taxes could be increased again. For people who work hard and want their money to be safe, mixing Bitcoin could be the solution.
The purpose of all this mixing is to maintain privacy, so why is it a problem when it comes to money laundering? What I am looking for as a commoner is decentralization, why are they accused of being negative, do they want to return to conventional as they want.
The purpose of all this mixing is to maintain privacy, so why is it a problem when it comes to money laundering? What I am looking for as a commoner is decentralization, why are they accused of being negative, do they want to return to conventional as they want.
it actually says if a service is defined as a CEX then it needs to be regulated.. it does not say all services need to be defined as a CEX
If a store accepts bitcoin and does not keep them in a regulated exchange, it can be considered "obfuscation of destination". If you swap bitcoin for an altcoin and then the altcoin for bitcoin, it can be considered "obfuscation of destination". If you move your bitcoin across your wallets, it can be considered "obfuscation of destination". Anything can be considered to obfuscate unless you report all of your transactions to the government or do everything inside a regulated CEX.
read it properly.. stop making up things
it actually says if a service is defined as a CEX then it needs to be regulated.. it does not say all services need to be defined as a CEX
If a store accepts bitcoin and does not keep them in a regulated exchange, it can be considered "obfuscation of destination". If you swap bitcoin for an altcoin and then the altcoin for bitcoin, it can be considered "obfuscation of destination". If you move your bitcoin across your wallets, it can be considered "obfuscation of destination". Anything can be considered to obfuscate unless you report all of your transactions to the government or do everything inside a regulated CEX.
a retailer receives funds. and pays out funds. they are not defined as a MSB/MTS nor mixer
In FinCEN proposal it says that you can only use bitcoin through centralized exchanges that require KYC. Their definition of "CVC mixing" is totally broad: https://fincen.gov/sites/default/files/federal_register_notices/2023-10-19/FinCEN_311MixingNPRM_FINAL.pdf, page 30.
Quote
The term “CVC mixing” means the facilitation of CVC transactions in a manner that obfuscates the source, destination, or amount involved in one or more transactions, regardless of the type of protocol or service used.
read more and have a deeper think about it
you can use funds in many ways.
it actually says if a service is defined as a CEX then it needs to be regulated.. it does not say all services need to be defined as a CEX
learn about other services not defined as a CEX.
as for mixer if you are advertising the purpose of the service is to anonymise, obfuscate, distort the lineage of the funds. they you as the advertiser are putting your service into the "mixer" category
again learn about other services not defined as a mixer
learn what the definitions do say then think about what it is not saying. and think about things in the not said category
Jump to: