Topic: EU wants to ban crypto anonymous transactions and wallets - page 5. (Read 852 times)
This is something that I certainly have very much feared, as a huge Monero supporter especially. This is really why I have stressed over and over again that bitcoin should never become fully anonymous. Would I love for bitcoin to be fully anonymous? Of course! However if you think about it, many countries don't allow freedom of religion, or freedom of sexual preference, disallowing women to vote or drive.. if these type of restriction are in place, then how on earth are they going to allow exchanges to operate allowing an on and off ramp for a currency they can't control..could get messy.
Limiting transactions below 10,000 euros
That's just laughable. What are they going to do: charge criminals for smuggling €100 million worth of cocaine, with an additional charge for accepting cash money?Unfortunately, there's not much to laugh at though. I hope it's one of those classic moves that then end up as bubbles punctured by needles. Like Marathon filtering transactions first and then saying, oops, we made a mistake we don't filter anymore.
It's different here though since these bureaucrats really want to set up a coercive system in multiple areas. Everything is being channeled well into an authoritarian drift.
The panopticon is progressing well, it seems.
I think it will be only for exchanges which are pretty common these days, where you have to give your identity (KYC). I don't think this will affect hardware wallet or electrum, as there is no 3rd party involved. If you want to cash out via exchanges, yeah you cannot be anonymous. BTC differs from Monero et al., no hope for EU to accept privacy coins.
Anyway, 2nd interpretation (wild imagination) is to require all wallets including electrum et al. to provide KYC service, which is unlikely IMO.
Anyway, 2nd interpretation (wild imagination) is to require all wallets including electrum et al. to provide KYC service, which is unlikely IMO.
As the article says, it's still at a stage of a proposal, and will require approval from two major institutions of the EU. So let's not panic about it just yet. It's interesting they should mention bank wire transfers because I wonder when they're going to ban all cash or enforce KYC on it, since it's also a great deal of money that goes all around without any IDs. Before this is done, it's hypocritical to impose restrictions on cryptos. Also, for once, I'm glad my country is not in the EU, and we don't have any legislation that imposes such a strong form of control over one's money.
What a load of BS? How we are supposed to remove the anonymity from our transactions? Are they saying that everyone should register whatever cryptocurrency addresses they have with some central authority and then undergo KYC process? All the best with such draconian moves. Let me see how successful they are. I have no words to describe those guys who put these stupid proposals. These are just retarded suggestions. These guys don't have enough information about cryptocurrency and think that it is something similar to fiat/banking system.
Why would they worry about this one though, have a better intelligence network if you want to stop this terrorists, don't do some regulatory shit that doesn't benefit anyone but the people in power. Train your staffs and pawns to be more smarter and have an integrity if you want to infiltrate these rings of crime.
Do they mean that wallets like Bitcoin Core or Electrum?
If they meant it, then they're really stupider than they seem - but I believe no one is so naive as to think they can control Bitcoin to the point that they can know who is behind every transaction, no matter how public all transactions are. There is already a thread in which some things are clarified, there is no need to panic - while bureaucrats in the EU agree on something, it usually becomes less relevant - in some member states AML5 is not implemented yet, and they are talking about the new AML6
Does anyone remember the facial recognition technology London had that could only pick up white men so it got scrapped (due to having only 30% accuracy of the people it saw). That was a recent development the UK went ahead with and the EU banned from the start... This'll probably go like that.
Realistically, most EU countries have terratories outside of the EU so I think that's going to cause a bit of a problem (they're normally implemented as tax havens or with looser laws too). People will just go there if they want to money launder, a return flight - at most - is €2400 i dont think that's a deterrent (unless you're one of the nordics then it's probably a €30 ferry ticket). It looks weird if you do it too often but if you don't or you buy a house there...
But what I would be interested to know especially from more knowledgeable people like you is if you think this will be implemented
Realistically, most EU countries have terratories outside of the EU so I think that's going to cause a bit of a problem (they're normally implemented as tax havens or with looser laws too). People will just go there if they want to money launder, a return flight - at most - is €2400 i dont think that's a deterrent (unless you're one of the nordics then it's probably a €30 ferry ticket). It looks weird if you do it too often but if you don't or you buy a house there...
Fiat is a serious problem, then, because most money laundering is carried out using cash. And don't think that abolishing cash would help either. Large amounts of electronic money are laundered via corporate networks and international transfers through tax havens.
Maybe in the past but right now, I think that launderers are trying their luck with cryptocurrency because of the advent rise of privacy coins so I don't think that it's not just fiat anymore but also cryptocurrencies and we have to be really proactive when it comes to this kind of thing. I mean no matter how we don't like it, terrorism is much more problem. 
Limiting transactions below 10,000 euros
That's just laughable. What are they going to do: charge criminals for smuggling €100 million worth of cocaine, with an additional charge for accepting cash money? 
Quote
to combat money laundering and terrorism financing.
Yea I guess, try fixing the current system which is riddled with the problems you're "trying" to fix before actually entering the decentralized system. Sheesh, it's like putting the cart before the horse. It wouldn't end up well imo, bans have always been there and yet people always find a way to bypass it if they really want to. If it was only a single person or two, then maybe it could be stopped, but the entire community wanting to use it? They'd end up finding a hole sooner or later. Might as well help in managing it properly and attacking the right area instead of a front like this imo. 
My guess is the burden of proof will be on you. My bank already wants to know far more than I'm comfortable with, but: "cooperate or lose your account".
All that did was make me realize even more how much we need Bitcoin!
All that did was make me realize even more how much we need Bitcoin!
This is how banking works. They are private businesses and only care about themselves.
And I guess that hoping that politicians will give better laws is rather stupid from my side.
So yeah, maybe there will be enough businesses accepting bitcoin directly (and hopefully they won't be too picky about the source wallets also).
They can not do it when terrorists are buying AK47 using cash but now they are going to because blockchain is traceable, but the kind of authority they will acquire is something we can't trust. But they will try, it's interesting to see how they will do this. Limiting transactions below 10,000 euros ($11,800) i guess are not required.
Do they mean that wallets like Bitcoin Core or Electrum?
I'm required to pay taxes only on the fiat I withdraw from exchanges, so the agencies may not know certainly the amount of my holdings.
If in 5 years I want to cash in all my crypto, will they consider me a terrorist?
My guess is the burden of proof will be on you. My bank already wants to know far more than I'm comfortable with, but: "cooperate or lose your account".If in 5 years I want to cash in all my crypto, will they consider me a terrorist?
All that did was make me realize even more how much we need Bitcoin!
I'm required to submit my holdings to taxes anyway
I'm required to pay taxes only on the fiat I withdraw from exchanges, so the agencies may not know certainly the amount of my holdings.
If in 5 years I want to cash in all my crypto, will they consider me a terrorist? I hope that the legislation will not be that bad.
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.
I'm required to submit my holdings to taxes anyway, but they don't ask for addresses. It's going to be a lot more work though.I'm pretty sure none of them believes terrorists who want to buy AK-47s are going to be stopped by this, so the real motives must be towards gaining more power for themselves. And that's the part I dislike most.
I would gladly give away the privilege of pseudonymity if it can prevent terrorist funding and money laundering from using crypto
That's cute. I also want world peace and end world hunger, but since I'm not running for Miss World, I know it won't happen. 
I guess what that means is that they want people's real name to be attached to all of their transactions. It does not work that way in decentralized public and trustless cryptocurrency. Refusing users from using the anonymity feature will leave them vulnerable to attacks/risks. It's not a good thing to expose innocent people to danger.
I guess this can solved in a way that benefits both parties (users & governments). People could simply have their real identities verified, thoroughly encrypted and stored in decentralized manner. Verified users can have tiny Blue checkmark close to their crypto addresses while they remain anonymous. Whenever a verified user commits serious crime, his/her identity can be unmasked... Problem solved without violating People's right to privacy and anonymity.
By the way, where I'm from, we don't usually tell people our names when we want to buy things from them
I guess this can solved in a way that benefits both parties (users & governments). People could simply have their real identities verified, thoroughly encrypted and stored in decentralized manner. Verified users can have tiny Blue checkmark close to their crypto addresses while they remain anonymous. Whenever a verified user commits serious crime, his/her identity can be unmasked... Problem solved without violating People's right to privacy and anonymity.
By the way, where I'm from, we don't usually tell people our names when we want to buy things from them
Same old, same old. "Money laundering and terrorism" is always used as an excuse to gain more control over the people.
But those two are a serious problem though, I mean I would gladly give away the privilege of pseudonymity if it can prevent terrorist funding and money laundering from using crypto, I think that the market would benefit more if we crypto isn't rife of these malicious or even evil activities.Fiat is a serious problem, then, because most money laundering is carried out using cash. And don't think that abolishing cash would help either. Large amounts of electronic money are laundered via corporate networks and international transfers through tax havens.
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.
Same old, same old. "Money laundering and terrorism" is always used as an excuse to gain more control over the people.
Jump to: