Topic: Devastating "Infrastructure" bill in US - contact your representatives - page 3. (Read 688 times)

Firstly the new bill may take into account the huge tax revenue .The relevant provisions in the bill may not be completely abolished. Therefore, they will focus on making small improvements as much as possible.
Secondly this bill  may push a large number of participants, companies and individuals involved in the encryption field to go overseas, which will really stifle innovation in the U.S. encryption field.

Most small exchanges are scams anyway. If you are going to use a centralized exchange along with all the disadvantages it brings, complete KYC, give up your privacy, risk the security of your coins, risk having your account locked, and so on, then you might as well stick to a big name exchange who (you would hope) will have somewhat better security procedures and customer support than some tiny no-name exchange.

I'm more interested to see how they are going to apply this legislation to decentralized exchanges, specifically fiat/bitcoin DEXs. At its simplest, a decentralized exchange simply connects two parties. If you want to argue that putting a buyer and seller in contact with each other constitutes "effectuating a transfer", then you also make platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and this forum in to brokers. Even if the DEX in question provides an escrow, what if they have no part in the escrow address, such as Bisq's 2-of-2 multisig escrow between buyer and seller? Regardless, Bisq will not comply with this ridiculous legislation and good luck blocking it since it runs locally over Tor.

meanwhile. whilst citizens moan to their representatives about how they feel scared and threatened as a node user and want comforting hugs from representatives telling them they aint going to be part of the group.

actual MSB that are actually going to be pushed into more paperwork and requiring KYC for just atomic swaps and routing(previously unreported). are setting their businesses up outside US jurisdiction. or changing business plan to avoid such services.

the large exchanges love more hurdles and barriers of entry. because they get to be the monopoly of compliance knowing any small business now has even more regulation, so small MSB tend to avoid getting involved and avoid expanding. and end up fizzling out of the custodian sector. meaning less competition for the big boys.

parts of it is about the fact that MSB's need to be compliant. meaning they need a employee thats trained in compliance and pass a regulatory test and also alot of other little bits of bureacratic headache, policy handbooks and licence fee's.

its not a simple 'send an email with a customers name address and value moved'..
its all licences, qualifications, audits. all of which have costs. and if you dont do it the MSB can be liable as a launderer

big business already has this stuff.. but the small businesses just doing crypto-to-crypto are going to see a steep learning curve soon.... very steep
lots of fines and court cases for MSB not walking the thin line of regulation

Not yet.

Here is a section of what Portman said on the floor (emphasis added):


A solution is being worked out (he says), but until it is introduced, voted on, and passed, then nothing is final. It also sounds now like everyone who wrote this bill had no idea what they were proposing, basing the entire bill on what happens for stocks, and are only now starting to realize that there is a lot more to bitcoin, due mostly to the huge numbers of calls and emails they have reportedly been receiving.

So keep up the pressure! Also, here's a site which will clearly show if your Senator is an enemy of bitcoin: https://didtheyvoteagainst.me/

yawn.. obvious.
when the wording said things like
any person who (for consideration) is responsible for [custodian for a fee]
and regularly provides any service [business]
effectuating transfers of digital assets for another person.[MSB]

it was clear that it was never about software developers, node users, miners or retailers
it was always about MSB's

miners, nodes, and software developers dont take custody of peoples funds.[no responsibility]

anyway, while people think the battle is won even though the obvious was always true from the start

now all exchanges and coinjoins and MSB that only handle crypto-crypto have to KYC.
this can be avoided by just registering the business outside of the US and IP ban US usage. much like the tactics of the bitlicence era

and yes this leaves LN payment route hubs in the new MSB category..
not because of any node handling or software usage. but for regularly offering a payment routing of other peoples value for a fee

We won (I think)




@celsiusworks
Bullish news! Senator Portman said only exchanges will be seen as brokers.
Miners, operators and developers are being excluded from this definition!

https://twitter.com/celsiusworks/status/1424436878623739904?s=21

^MAJOR UPDATE: Yes, Wyden-Lummis-Toomey amendment is being talked down in favor of amendment by the bill's sponsor, Senator Portman. The President is backing Portman's do nothing amendment. This is BAD.

How do you know a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.

Here is how you know they were planning to tax everyone all along and wreck the crypto industry:

Portman's revision:
How could this be interpreted? Well still everyone could be included. Bitcoin miners could potentially be included, because of the lightning network. Any proof of stake coin would be regulated. All crypto software is free so it could be included. Only some wallets give control of private keys. It would seem DeFi and DEX are included in all revisions.

Assume the worst!

This backs up a previous statement by a US Representative hinting that Janet Yellen was behind the original crypto bill.

https://deep-resonance.org/2021/08/06/biden-deals-blow-to-crypto-industry-backs-plan-to-tax-proof-of-stake/

Keep up the pressure...

Update:

Voting on the bill seems to be tomorrow (Saturday).



@CynthiaMLummis
We NEED you. Pls call your Senators. Pls tweet. Pls email. We are facing major headwinds on the Wyden-Lummis-Toomey amendment. Burying financial innovation in red tape & sending devs + miners on info collection wild goose chases for info they don’t know is horrible policy.
https://twitter.com/cynthiamlummis/status/1423477647288328193?s=21



When asked the day voting will take place she replies -



@CynthiaMLummis
Looks like Saturday.
https://twitter.com/cynthiamlummis/status/1423478722640834563?s=21

Good News



@jerrybrito
I’m thrilled to say that @RonWyden @CynthiaMLummis and @SenToomey have introduced an amendment to explicitly exclude validators, hardware and software wallet makers, and protocol devs from the tax reporting provisions. Bravo! Now we have to get this thing passed.

https://twitter.com/jerrybrito/status/1422974253876580355?s=21

I am with o_e_l_e_o and the others on this matter. This is too important to think that nothing is happening and play it down.

If the bill were to be approved as it is, it would lead to an exodus of miners again. But I am confident that good sense will prevail and it will be modified.

Another thing is that I think, over time, there is going to be less and less anonymity in Bitcoin. The powers that be are going to try to identify as many people as they can, how much they own, what transactions they do, etc. The EU is also taking steps in this direction: EU wants to ban crypto anonymous transactions and wallets. And I think they will succeed to a large extent, but hopefully there will always be a space for privacy.

By the way, there seems to be some steps in the right direction:

https://twitter.com/BlockchainAssn/status/1422661028815441925

Right, well perhaps you would like to phone Senator Toomey and explain to him how your interpretation of the bill is the correct one and so he doesn't need to propose any amendments.

The very fact we are having this discussion is proof enough the bill needs amended. The wording shouldn't be open to this much interpretation, as there is absolutely no guarantee that this Senate nor every single successive Senate will interpret the bill in the way you think they should. All it needs is a couple of anti-bitcoin Seantors to be elected, and they can and would use the wording here for their own purposes.

Keep phoning your representatives. Let's get this fixed.

FTFY

that does not mean bitcoin nodes.. because nodes dont get any 'consideration' (fee) nodes are not even custodians of other peoples assets.

also the "regularly provides any service effectuating transfers"
this does not mean just handling money(retail).. nor does it mean handling data records of transfers(accountants)(databackup)
nor software developers making software for brokers/MSB

and no.. mining pools are not custodians on behalf to 2 parties. they dont take responsibility of peoples funds.
so dont fall down that rabbit hole


it actually then comes back to the common sense of what a broker is. and what a MSB is

it means actually operating a service for the purpose of transfering assets for another person
average joe with a node is not offering a service
a grocery store accepting payment is not offering a money transfer service

businesses classed as MSB are affected
this again is the realm of the big exchanges and coinjoin, escrow services. not a thing to scare bitcoin node users over.


if people poke their senator about irrational 'worse case' stuff. the senator will just think the person poking is irrational and ignore their plea
however if you act rational and poke your senator about rational pleas regarding over reach of laws on MSB's. then you will have a point worth listening to.

in short
if you phone a senator and say 'im just a node user i dont want to report anyone' they will say fine bye.
because thats not what the proposed law is about,

if your an MSB and phone a senator. then yea the conversation will be a bit longer and more worthy

Once again, here is the proposed wording:


So no, neither a banana nor a grapefruit would qualify as being a broker, but any person who provides a service which helps you make a transaction, any transaction, could be. Does a wallet help you make a transaction? Undoubtedly. Does a node help you make a transaction? Unless you mine your own transactions, absolutely. Does a miner help you make a transaction? Well, good luck making a transaction without a miner.

Looks like Toomey has seen some sense, as per LFC above. Here's another quote from him:

I guess any time you're present in a topic, I have to add the qualifier "within the realms of reality" after "assume the worst".  Most people would take that as a given, though.   

im gonna keep this quote for future reference for other topics. i think doomad can already realise why his words can be used against him. especially when he social dramatises how others that think the worst should just f**k off


in this case, thinking the worse has its limits. because although it does not define what a broker is not. it does define what a broker is. and makes no mention of a broker being a software developer or a customer of a investment company.
leaning on the side of 'if it doesnt mention it assume the worse that its included'. means a banana and a grapefruit can be a broker too.. (famepalm)
its where common sense needs to be added to the context of the document. to then understand it. . and not just pick something thats not mentioned in it and then try to twist it into suggesting that it includes it

in short its about MSB(money service businesses) not the contracted software developer of MSB. not the delivery guy delivering to a MSB, not a customer of a MSB

so again defining what is an MSB would include businesses and associations and organisation that perform transfer, exchange, transact as a service business. not lil old joe paying for a bottle of beer at the local 7-11

its actually about MSB that are brokers.. not grocery stores accepting money for goods.
brokers(companies being custodians and performing trades of investment that require its employees doing the trades to pass the series 7 exam)

now can people stop trying to twist it to make it sound like grocery stores, and grocery store customers are brokers.. because they are not. and the draft bill does not even assume or suggest or hint any such thing that retailers and customers are

so again. dont worry about normal users having to report every time they accept a block(like some are trying to FUD above)

its about services like coinjoin. exchanges, altcoin swaps. (actual businesses offering the service)
so yea try contacting your local reps to get the draft dropped for its real purpose. just dont go running down rabbit holes thinking it actually affects everyone receiving a block of data or buying a coffee

So what, exactly? Since the government have your KYC data, that's justification enough for literally every node operator to collect your KYC data and share it with every other node operator? After all, a node can't accept a transaction from another node unless the KYC data for that transaction is sent alongside it. What about every miner, since again, they cant mine transactions unless they know the accompanying KYC data. You trust the security of every single one of those users? Hell, all I have to do is fire up a node and immediately receive thousands of users' KYC data, complete with passport scans and selfies. A scammer's dream come true! Your identity would be stolen before you could even put a credit freeze on your details.

Nonsense. The US can still ban bitcoin anytime they like. There is nothing good about this legislation.

I don't think that it's going to stop people from using bitcoin, unless their die hard fans of privacy that doesn't know that their personal information is already on the records of the government. It's actually a good move for US to do this because I think that even if it looks bad for now, we at the least don't have to worry of a total ban on a federal level.

Nodes would be providing a service to other people which means that they would require KYC from those connecting to it. This is the USA trying to ban Bitcoin without actually banning it instead bringing in legislation that they know would stop most people from using the currency.

That's the healthy approach.  Assume the worst and prepare accordingly.  If I were telling people to remain calm, it's not because I'd be making assumptions that these proposals won't affect people.  It's because legislation changes as the times do.  Take the early automotive industry and Red Flag laws as an example.  If the technology is robust enough, it will outlive any silly and overly encumbering laws. 

However, if people can intervene and stop the lawmakers repeating past mistakes, that's clearly the better way to go.  Even short-term disruption is better to avoid if possible.

Are you a lawyer? I am not, but what I have learned is that if legal language can be applied to something, eventually it will be applied to something - especially when it is the government deciding against you. It doesn't matter what the original intent was or what people think it means. The current language can be interpreted to apply to every average joe.

Latest discussion:


Thanks, LFC_Bitcoin. Toomey is proposing an amendment. People's voices are being heard. Keep up the pressure! His full press release: