Topic: EU wants to ban crypto anonymous transactions and wallets - page 3. (Read 852 times)
LOL.. look at the person who made the statement. Mairead McGuinness (European Union financial srevices commissioner), who is originally from Ireland. She comes from a country that is regarded as a safe haven for financial criminals and used as a base by corporate firms such as Amazon and Microsoft to evade EU taxes (Ireland is one of the 9 countries, that have refused to sign the OECD proposal for minimum corporate tax). I guess Ms. McGuinness is concerned that Ireland will lose its inflow of shady funds, if Bitcoin becomes more popular. I hope McGuinness will soon be kicked out of office and replaced by someone who is mentally stable.
This I believe may affect Bitcoin, at least as we know it so far:
"In particular, the EU would ban anonymous crypto asset wallets, according to an EU fact sheet, with the European Commission saying that systems like Bitcoin should be governed by the same rules as regular bank wire transfers."
In other words, for each transaction they want to identify the user who sends and the user who receives the transaction, which is easy if one of the parties is a registered exchange user. If the other party is not identified, the transaction is blocked.
I don't know how those who have their funds in hardware wallets and don't want to identify themselves would be. I suppose that at least they would be very limited in their ability to send funds. And then banning anonymous wallets is another blow to privacy.
I don't know what you think about how this could end up.
I think if this is turns out to be right and they approve a law on such thing, bitcoin and crypto would take a massive hit and a lot of people would stop using it, because the whole concept of using bitcoin is to make transactions without having to go through the government and the bank's law and having to identify the source and the purpose of it, and by this it will defy the whole concept of using it"In particular, the EU would ban anonymous crypto asset wallets, according to an EU fact sheet, with the European Commission saying that systems like Bitcoin should be governed by the same rules as regular bank wire transfers."
In other words, for each transaction they want to identify the user who sends and the user who receives the transaction, which is easy if one of the parties is a registered exchange user. If the other party is not identified, the transaction is blocked.
I don't know how those who have their funds in hardware wallets and don't want to identify themselves would be. I suppose that at least they would be very limited in their ability to send funds. And then banning anonymous wallets is another blow to privacy.
I don't know what you think about how this could end up.
You know, the harder they push..... the harder the hardcore supporters of "privacy" push back. They are going to open up a whole can of worms with this, because the developers pushing for full anonymity are just going to create more anonymous platforms, if it gets banned.
Pseudo anonymity was the primary goal and using FIAT currencies, gives you that freedom. (If a friend gives you $100 for watching his dog and you use that $100 to buy something ....then that transaction is pseudo anonymous, because authorities needs to have the serial number of that note ..to track it's movement)
The Pandora's box has been opened.... getting it back into the box is almost impossible now... everyone had a taste of it.
Pseudo anonymity was the primary goal and using FIAT currencies, gives you that freedom. (If a friend gives you $100 for watching his dog and you use that $100 to buy something ....then that transaction is pseudo anonymous, because authorities needs to have the serial number of that note ..to track it's movement)
The Pandora's box has been opened.... getting it back into the box is almost impossible now... everyone had a taste of it.
This I believe may affect Bitcoin, at least as we know it so far:
"In particular, the EU would ban anonymous crypto asset wallets, according to an EU fact sheet, with the European Commission saying that systems like Bitcoin should be governed by the same rules as regular bank wire transfers."
In other words, for each transaction they want to identify the user who sends and the user who receives the transaction, which is easy if one of the parties is a registered exchange user. If the other party is not identified, the transaction is blocked.
I don't know how those who have their funds in hardware wallets and don't want to identify themselves would be. I suppose that at least they would be very limited in their ability to send funds. And then banning anonymous wallets is another blow to privacy.
I don't know what you think about how this could end up.
"In particular, the EU would ban anonymous crypto asset wallets, according to an EU fact sheet, with the European Commission saying that systems like Bitcoin should be governed by the same rules as regular bank wire transfers."
In other words, for each transaction they want to identify the user who sends and the user who receives the transaction, which is easy if one of the parties is a registered exchange user. If the other party is not identified, the transaction is blocked.
I don't know how those who have their funds in hardware wallets and don't want to identify themselves would be. I suppose that at least they would be very limited in their ability to send funds. And then banning anonymous wallets is another blow to privacy.
I don't know what you think about how this could end up.
How long do I know large companies that buy BTC report to the SEC, in any case there was such information. I think they are doing this for a reason, but most likely the regulation is already taking place. But in this case, it is for large companies that can be one with the system. But this law can lure ordinary BTC holders out of the shadows and, as it were, push them to sell their coins. In this case, it may look like a way to take Bitcoin away from ordinary investors in favor of large companies or even the system itself.
This I believe may affect Bitcoin, at least as we know it so far:
"In particular, the EU would ban anonymous crypto asset wallets, according to an EU fact sheet, with the European Commission saying that systems like Bitcoin should be governed by the same rules as regular bank wire transfers."
In other words, for each transaction they want to identify the user who sends and the user who receives the transaction, which is easy if one of the parties is a registered exchange user. If the other party is not identified, the transaction is blocked.
I don't know how those who have their funds in hardware wallets and don't want to identify themselves would be. I suppose that at least they would be very limited in their ability to send funds. And then banning anonymous wallets is another blow to privacy.
I don't know what you think about how this could end up.
I personally don't see a problem with this. Now we have most of all these Big investors from Banks and Billionaires and other organizations coming out to say they have invested such and such amount in Bitcoin and I believe that every cryptocurrency investor wants to continue to hear news like that because we believe it is bullish news for Bitcoin, why then is it difficult for the rest of the people and still wants to make transactions anonymous or private? I wish that was the case in my country and not the Ban on crypto trade transactions in all financial institutions because, with the ban, I am making half of the profits I would have if the financial institutions were not banned from crypto transactions via P2P. "In particular, the EU would ban anonymous crypto asset wallets, according to an EU fact sheet, with the European Commission saying that systems like Bitcoin should be governed by the same rules as regular bank wire transfers."
In other words, for each transaction they want to identify the user who sends and the user who receives the transaction, which is easy if one of the parties is a registered exchange user. If the other party is not identified, the transaction is blocked.
I don't know how those who have their funds in hardware wallets and don't want to identify themselves would be. I suppose that at least they would be very limited in their ability to send funds. And then banning anonymous wallets is another blow to privacy.
I don't know what you think about how this could end up.
Just my opinion.
I'm not surprised with this decision actually. Because none of the big countries would like to let people make transactions anonymously as there could be some threats for them too. Because there are people who are laundering money by using this method. Governments would like to be able to detect these people and punish them.
Governments and banks are the biggest criminals, do you really think they will punish themselves?
I agree with one thing, I am not surprised either! It's what some of us expected, the game is rigged and they are creating laws in their favor, for known purpose, to keep the control and power in their hands!
It will be interesting to see how they plan to enforce their rules on crypto... I think they are too late to do anything, this train can not be stopped, too many people are involved and connected in some new way, crypto way! And it's spreading, new things arise, new ways and possibilities... whatever they do crypto will find a way to do it better! Now when we learned how to do it, it will be hard to stop us!
In other words, for each transaction they want to identify the user who sends and the user who receives the transaction, which is easy if one of the parties is a registered exchange user. If the other party is not identified, the transaction is blocked.
Can this be achievable for accounts that are not linked to exchanges because I understand that government can mandate all exchanges to implement kyc for all customers just with binance is attracting customers to do in phases of registration but for private wallets not tied to any exchange? How will that be implemented? Or the apps are going to introduce that during registration.
Price jumped from 30K to 40K after such negative news which shows how much people are against the government amd they really wam9to achieve freedom for that bitcoin can help a lot.
That wasn't what pumped bitcoin, first it all started when Elon made a statement in Bword event and then another one came after some rumours about Amazon accepting Cryptocurrency which they later debunked, the price corrected after that's but with technical analysis, some whales are bullish about bitcoin as the their is potential crossing of 200 moving average and 50 moving average.
We will definitely see some bullish moves if that eventually happens.
As if the ledger isn't already public, people can follow what's happening there, crypto is already pseudonymous so making some sort of regulation and mask it as a way to deter crimes or stuff is just an excuse so they can have a control over their population.
What I don't get is how would they even enforce their plans? Am I missing something? How would they ban Monero wallets from being downloaded and then block transactions? This is bogus, seriously. They can't do shit about it. The only thing they can do is prohibit merchants and other official / registered entities from accepting unidentifiable transactions. That's about as much as they can do.
I honestly don't think they will be able to this, I see it as an empty threat to scare people away from using crypto, but I doubt anyone with some experience will believe all this, they can only be successful with this through the help of centralize exchanges otherwise they will fail in their attempt.
Therein lies the beauty of bitcoin - you simply cannot do that.
There is no centralised point of failure as there is for traditional wire transfers, which is what makes BTC so unique and useful in the first place. No central entity can control transaction validation, money supply, or even censor transactions. It's simply not possible unless they somehow shut down all of the nodes worldwide.
They could always formulate regulation, but whether or not they'll be able to enforce it is another issue altogether.
I wish you were right, but unfortunately you are not There is no centralised point of failure as there is for traditional wire transfers, which is what makes BTC so unique and useful in the first place. No central entity can control transaction validation, money supply, or even censor transactions. It's simply not possible unless they somehow shut down all of the nodes worldwide.
They could always formulate regulation, but whether or not they'll be able to enforce it is another issue altogether.
. The reality is that all exchanges will force KYC and will give every single transaction you do to authorities and will force you to accept this fact, if it is the law then they will have to follow the law after all. However at the same time if you are looking for way to avoid it? You can do that as long as you stay in the crypto world without ever moving to fiat world, this would require you to earn crypto and spend crypto without ever using fiat, which is quite harsh and difficult but it could be done if you so choose.At the end of the day, if you want to deal with "companies" that are obliged by law to do something, could be exchange, could be casino, could be ecommerce, could be anything that deals with laws, then you will be forced to accept their situation as well and that's all there is to it.
What I don't get is how would they even enforce their plans? Am I missing something? How would they ban Monero wallets from being downloaded and then block transactions? This is bogus, seriously. They can't do shit about it.
It will be the same as almost any other law: law abiding citizens will follow the law, while criminals don't care. It's the same as for instance gun laws: where I live normal people don't have them, but it doesn't stop criminals. Same old, same old. "Money laundering and terrorism" is always used as an excuse to gain more control over the people.
I agree.
But what I would be interested to know especially from more knowledgeable people like you is if you think this will be implemented and if it will indeed greatly limit the privacy and ability to transact for users who have their funds in hardware or paper wallets and don't want to identify themselves.
What I don't get is how would they even enforce their plans? Am I missing something? How would they ban Monero wallets from being downloaded and then block transactions? This is bogus, seriously. They can't do shit about it. The only thing they can do is prohibit merchants and other official / registered entities from accepting unidentifiable transactions. That's about as much as they can do.
Price jumped from 30K to 40K after such negative news which shows how much people are against the government amd they really wam9to achieve freedom for that bitcoin can help a lot.
Another typical scenario which screams manipulation and control by the government. Banning anonymous transactions defeats the purpose of cryptocurrency. Some people are here in crypto because of its decentralized nature. Having the government be part and involved in private transactions of the users who opted to make their transactions anonymous is just absurd. Why can't the government let their people enjoy things? I can't help but think that they are just using the reasons such as filtering illegal transactions as a front to be concerned to their citizens, when in fact all they want is to take over them.
It's really hard to be sandwiched in a situation wherein crypto is legalized but with reservations. I just hope the officials will be open-minded about crypto's nature. Hopefully, the government will not try to do things that will be a disadvantage to their constituents. This kind of scenario is totally not new in crypto but I hope there would come a time that situations like these will no longer be rampant.
It's really hard to be sandwiched in a situation wherein crypto is legalized but with reservations. I just hope the officials will be open-minded about crypto's nature. Hopefully, the government will not try to do things that will be a disadvantage to their constituents. This kind of scenario is totally not new in crypto but I hope there would come a time that situations like these will no longer be rampant.
This I believe may affect Bitcoin, at least as we know it so far:
"In particular, the EU would ban anonymous crypto asset wallets, according to an EU fact sheet, with the European Commission saying that systems like Bitcoin should be governed by the same rules as regular bank wire transfers."
In other words, for each transaction they want to identify the user who sends and the user who receives the transaction, which is easy if one of the parties is a registered exchange user. If the other party is not identified, the transaction is blocked.
I don't know how those who have their funds in hardware wallets and don't want to identify themselves would be. I suppose that at least they would be very limited in their ability to send funds. And then banning anonymous wallets is another blow to privacy.
I don't know what you think about how this could end up.
"In particular, the EU would ban anonymous crypto asset wallets, according to an EU fact sheet, with the European Commission saying that systems like Bitcoin should be governed by the same rules as regular bank wire transfers."
In other words, for each transaction they want to identify the user who sends and the user who receives the transaction, which is easy if one of the parties is a registered exchange user. If the other party is not identified, the transaction is blocked.
I don't know how those who have their funds in hardware wallets and don't want to identify themselves would be. I suppose that at least they would be very limited in their ability to send funds. And then banning anonymous wallets is another blow to privacy.
I don't know what you think about how this could end up.
Hmm ... how interesting - on the one hand, cryptocurrency is not recognized as a means of payment and an asset that has real value, but they want to control the movement of "virtual tokens that are not secured by anything", so that they can then take taxes from a full-fledged market transaction with a profit
in thinking and approach ... 
Its too easy to attack crypto for terrorism and money laundry side. Meanwhile, they dont define that crypto just a tool of them, before crypto exist USD is a tool for the bad activity too. There is no different between fiat or crypto as transaction use. When they propose the plan to ban annonymous transaction, I think that means peer to peer transaction will be forbidden and the only transactions accepted come from exchangers. This will change the characteristic of crypto which is desentralize.
They are not really attacking "crypto" they are attacking how it's used. Same goes for euro or dollars as well, it is something very valid and allowed even in Cuba you can use dollars in some places, it is not really about the currency and which one it is, it is about how you use it. For example lets imagine you buy a car washing business, and the whole purpose is to launder money, if you are not too powerful of a person neither, when that's found out you will be put to jail even if you are using fiat for all of it.This is why I am pretty sure it is not the difference between fiat or crypto, sure governments do not see crypto as a great thing but they are trying to ban anonymous transactions and wallets here, they are not trying to ban crypto, which is a huge difference. I am personally fine with banning anonymous transactions and wallets tbf, would make things easier for rest of us.
This I believe may affect Bitcoin, at least as we know it so far:
"In particular, the EU would ban anonymous crypto asset wallets, according to an EU fact sheet, with the European Commission saying that systems like Bitcoin should be governed by the same rules as regular bank wire transfers."
In other words, for each transaction they want to identify the user who sends and the user who receives the transaction, which is easy if one of the parties is a registered exchange user. If the other party is not identified, the transaction is blocked.
I don't know how those who have their funds in hardware wallets and don't want to identify themselves would be. I suppose that at least they would be very limited in their ability to send funds. And then banning anonymous wallets is another blow to privacy.
I don't know what you think about how this could end up.
I think if this is turns out to be right and they approve a law on such thing, bitcoin and crypto would take a massive hit and a lot of people would stop using it, because the whole concept of using bitcoin is to make transactions without having to go through the government and the bank's law and having to identify the source and the purpose of it, and by this it will defy the whole concept of using it "In particular, the EU would ban anonymous crypto asset wallets, according to an EU fact sheet, with the European Commission saying that systems like Bitcoin should be governed by the same rules as regular bank wire transfers."
In other words, for each transaction they want to identify the user who sends and the user who receives the transaction, which is easy if one of the parties is a registered exchange user. If the other party is not identified, the transaction is blocked.
I don't know how those who have their funds in hardware wallets and don't want to identify themselves would be. I suppose that at least they would be very limited in their ability to send funds. And then banning anonymous wallets is another blow to privacy.
I don't know what you think about how this could end up.
That’s a little disappointing, what happened to the whole alleged value of freedom by the EU?
But I don’t see that becoming a big problem, how can they possibly influence the transactions that are done off the exchange? People with hardware should be fine, the only problem will be withdrawal. But I guess those regulations will just lead to the emergence of unlicensed and underground exchanges.
Ideologies go out of the window when they see their monopoly that they took for granted is under threat by a bunch of code, so it is obvious they are trying to regulate this to the best of their ability but they cannot do it, even if they are successful in passing this then exchanges will just move to other jurisdictions and if they try to force them to follow these same rules then decentralized exchanges will take over, so I am not worried about it as they have no way to win this battle. But I don’t see that becoming a big problem, how can they possibly influence the transactions that are done off the exchange? People with hardware should be fine, the only problem will be withdrawal. But I guess those regulations will just lead to the emergence of unlicensed and underground exchanges.
Quote
The EU plan unveiled Tuesday includes a number of proposals to boost the supervision of financial transactions, including creating a new EU body with around 250 staff members to supervise risky financial institutions and prohibiting cash transactions higher than 10,000 euros ($11,800).
Hmm. Seems like it'd take far more manpower than that to supervise all the financial transactions taking place in Europe, but I suppose if they have enough technology it'd be possible. However, they have to be talking about electronic transactions, because there's no way in hell a staff of 250 is going to be able to even track transactions in cold, hard cash above their arbitrary threshold. I'd wish them luck even trying it, but fuck them.Quote
“We shouldn’t have different rules for the financial system. They should apply across digital currencies as well,” EU financial srevices commissioner Mairead McGuinness said at a news conference Tuesday.
What they take for granted--and shouldn't--is that there aren't too many laws on the books regarding what the average citizen can do with his/her own money. There are far too many ways for the government to stick their money-grubbing hands into the pockets of the citizens they're supposed to represent. No threat posed by terrorists and/or money launderers justifies this kind of bullshit.But I'm glad to read this:
Quote
The package would have to be approved by the European Parliament and the European Council, which can be a lengthy process.
Hopefully this proposal is just posturing and will die in the crib. I also hope the European crypto community doesn't take shit like this lying down and that they make their voices heard. Jump to: