Topic: g20 FATF regulations to demand kyc for recipient (Read 382 times)

All these kyc are getting very annoying, btw I think it’s a good time to prepare ourselves for the upcoming trade war, load up foods, load up guns, load up crypto, also load up anything that’s made in China, why China? Because the tariff will no doubt push that’s product to a new level, also remember to blacklist the internet traffic that come from these annoying kyc group, filtering all incoming info so that we don’t want to be the victims of these trade war.

there's surely lots of tax avoidance happening in crypto. the stats from the IRS speak for themselves. if it makes avoiding taxes (by obfuscating ownership of crypto funds) more difficult, of course people are gonna complain about it.

even if your activities are 100% legit, this sounds horrible for privacy and data protection. this will require massive data sharing among exchanges about their users. and the fact is, $1000 is an insanely low threshold. $10000 is the threshold that banks use for currency transaction reporting. why the hell are crypto users being targeted for reporting for 10x smaller transactions? this doesn't seem like equal treatment.


because the exchanges will start asking for metaphorical blood samples just to do business with them. it's not just simple KYC anymore. they will require increasingly invasive information---where your money comes from, where your money is going, KYC information on the recipient of any aggregate payments totaling $1000..... why should we put up with this? my bank doesn't require this information for payments this small!

hopefully this will prompt a move back to p2p trading. let's make p2p cash trading great again!

1. little talked about?
theres atleast half a dozen topics on this forum talking about it

2. if your connecting your hardware wallet and spending direct to an exchange. you already lost anonymity. to avoid the 'hold funds hostage until ID given' .. most exchanges ask for ID upfront before you even moved any funds.

3. not what crypto was made for?
this is about using FIAT exchanges. these days even buying a car for more than $1k involves some kind of tax/income declaration. so what this is telling you is that FATF are clamping down on what people can do with fiat.

Now on to the certain part of the wallet identification, this is only to custodial wallet services (think Coinbase, for example). They know, even if they wanted to, that if they wanted to verify the identity of non-custodial wallets (sorry to use the term I really just mean standard Bitcoin wallets AS IT SHOULD BE but to provide context!) they couldn't enforce it.

Also, these are interpretive notes, and it will generally be up to the jurisdictions to enforce their own laws compliant with these guidelines.

Trust me, it's not as bad as it sounds - I agree it could be worse than we think of course but we as typical users should not need to worry, just as much as we can still use plenty of money senders and remittance services without that much kyc if we wanted to.

Everything seems to go as they please, nothing escapes even the tiniest crypto that is existing. They sure how to do their jobs and if this happens then it will be a total chaos for the people like OP. There are just people that want to be tracked especially if they are avoiding someone in the government. In our case,I have nothing against our government and in fact our leader has little concern about it.

Nope, they don't care about that, they need only the first link, the addresses from which the funds entered or to which they went, as user B will have no choice if he wants to use those BTC to try and exchange them where he will have to come to the surface himself.

They need only the recipient of the funds, when you withdraw btc from an exchange to your address you're the recipient of the funds. If you're stupid enough to withdraw to someone's else wallet, acting as a mule, then you deserve it.

As I said before FATF is not an enforcer of the law and it does not have prosecutors, they are interested only in getting the first link in the chain confirmed via KYC, they know all to well that large operations won't be able to weasel out of this, at one point addresses will collude, identities will link to some bank accounts, mistakes will be made with fake identities or reused sim cards, and they are pretty damn good at tracking.

Yup, this is what I expect to happen also. Basically, all user data will be stored on centralized servers. If this will be implemented, I will not be surprised to hear some news about data leaks or hacks.

The glory days of the privacy coins will be back.

What I meant is that there are cases that are fully traceable, and those that are not. By trace I means not just the addresses used on the blockchain, but the identification of the individuals on both ends of the TX (which is what this is really about):

-   If User A on Exchange X sends BTC to User B on Exchange Y, then both users (A and B) are nominally identified.

-   If User A on Exchange X sends BTC to User B, and User B us using for example a Ledger Nano S, then User A is identified, but User B is not (the TX identifies the addresses involved, but not one of the nominal end User – User B).

Obviously User B could later be identified by analizing the Blockchain if he eventually moves the BTC on to an exchange for trading or conversion to FIAT, but until then, one side of the TX is not nominally identifiable. In any case, that would be a deferred (and not necessarily swift or easy) nominal identification of the recipient of the TX, which is not likely the spirit intended by the proposal.

Edit:
I can't see what's not clear about the intent in "<...>as well as details about the recipients of the funds, and to send that data to the recipient’s service provider along with each transaction.<…>". I stress the term intent as in the declarative intention, and I'd say the intent is to identify during the TX, not way down the road.

I don't understand why you think is not feasible.
They will simply keep a record for the transactions from which addresses they sent the fund to the exchange and to where they withdraw.
It's already been done by a lot of exchanges which do keep track of the addresses they customer use.

Mt gox, for example, was doing this for some of its clients.
Besides, there is a huge open public database with all those transactions, the blockchains themselves.

When you deposit from address A the address gets linked to your account. When you withdraw to address B, it gets linked to your account and identity. When somebody else deposits from address A to another account probably it will trigger some flags.


Nope, you can't.
You can't sue the government for enacting laws, you can't sue the government for not enacting laws.
Let's all sue the governments for raising taxes

Besides, you're mistaken what the FATF and what the CFTC is doing and what regulations are they involved with.
Second, the g20 meeting is simply a meeting, the G20 has no power over internal politics.

Wow seriously wow what kind of responses are these? Why do you all support state regulation that much? Why do you trust this level of surveillance if you believe in the philosophy of the bitcoin protocol? You clearly haven't read the papers, nor do you understand the gravity of what FATF and the bank secrecy acts are and how they affect financial privacy. Seriously what on earth are these responses to the effect of "If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" Seriously? That is the huge problem with crypto, too many non philosophical people came into it looking for a quick buck with no understanding of the real intent of bitcoin and now you want to help the regulators mash it into something that it is not. You clearly don't understand the broader geopolitical indications of America's financial surveillance laws.

You can sue. Once they start passing laws. People can sue the SEC and CFTC and force it to the supreme court and pressure congress into reevaulating the g20 meetings. Let's be real, America decides on FATF ultimately, it's America ruling the world. Literally, not hyperbolically, if we say jump, you jump.

Do you have any idea how much money is in bitmex? Do you think all those people are going to stay there when they are forced to kyc?

Centralized exchanges were a mistake. They are a step backwards ethically and in terms of political freedom. The point of bitcoin is to get your money away from the government and keep it away.

I think time will come that Kyc will be hardly implemented. There will be no space for privacy and anonymity if that happens and it will be a burden for those who couldn't provide the documents required just to pass the Kyc. KYC is applicable in some cases especially for huge transactions but there must be an exception.

Most likely this is going to lead to the point, that each wallet will need to be registered (just as a bank account) to a specific person who will need to be verified in order to use it.
And unfortunately - for privacy cryptocurrencies to go fully underground.

As well, the verification of each transaction on exchanges will be much more time and manpower consuming.

For biggest fish in the market - it could mean that your transactions will be verified even in several days...what will drive away their customers.

And of course the fees will dramatically increase.

The thing is, the proposal (-to-be) is a bit wild under the current stand (see the article I referenced before: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-11/crypto-exchanges-are-facing-biggest-regulatory-hurdle-yet?srnd=cryptocurrencies).
From a technical point of view, applying KYC to facilitate the proposal’s requirements is already inherently partly in place, and the proposal’s net effects would effectively lead to a tighter control on those using an exchange, as well as passing information of those with TX with a FIAT value over 1K$/1K€ to some (unknown/unnamed) third-party authority or supervisor. That alone would be a step-up for many to step-down from centralized exchanges, but we can see that happening at some point regardless in one form or other.

What is technically non-feasible as is, is the part I marked in bold in the quoted text. If one sends BTC from an exchange to his Ledger (or other) wallet, there is no way to associate the recipient’s information other than the wallet address itself. To comply, one would need to either change the protocol to "add" information of the recipient (not going to happen I assume, since it would require associating identities to all addresses), or the exchange would need to perform a KYC (them or someone third-party entity) on the recipient himself, thus implementing a protocol for KYC customers only for both ends of a TX. That, in principal, would seem like something that would just push people in search for more anonymous alternatives, let alone the fact that it seems pretty wild to impose and implement.

Note that the text in bold is likely pretty preliminary I figure, and does not even consider the scenario of performing multiple TXs in a row with a value under 1K$/1K€ to bypass the intended proposal (i.e. no timeframe applied to an aggregate of TXs from A to B that surpass the limits when added together).

Kyc is being used for security purposes so I think we have nothing to worry about it unless we want to keep our transactions anonymous. There are exchanges that oblique us to pass the KYC for our own good. I'm sure that they will never do it for no reason.

I haven't come across an article which deeply explains what the G20 summit is going to do with regards to cryptocurrency regulations. All I know is Japan is handling/leading the cause, which to me is somewhat fair knowing how far ahead Japan is in crypto regulations than other countries out there. Perhaps regulations wouldn't go to the extreme end of the spectrum, like what you're trying to say in here but instead just making sure things wouldn't go out of hand for money laundering and other fraud schemes that is basically lingering the cryptocurrency scene up to now.

Unless official reports from the G20 summit surfaces, I won't react til then.

True enough and i wonder what would be the status of cryptocurrency by then after which this tightening is implemented particularly bitcoin. This will be a matter of choice for us, to put our identity at risk and continue the game or just leave the matter behind and shift to something safer.

Why are you worried?? Are you a terrorist?? Are you a tax evader?? Do you launder money??

If you are not doing anything illegal, then why do you think it's not safe? What and whose safety you are referring to??

Crypto is being seen as a big threat to the current economy because governments can't track transactions. If a person is not doing anything illegal then why that person would be worried? You can make millions in crypto trading, but if you are paying your taxes diligently, what the problem??

I am sure governments would not take any such drastic step because that would be considered as an interference in personal life, but even if it happens, why a law abiding Citizen would be worried?

Regulation will be beneficial for cryptos. Mark my word! I am not an outlaw and I prefer to stay within the framework and still grow huge!

Governments all over the world are trying to slowly but surely tighten the knot on all forms of privacy, including everyone's financial privacy. Why do you think most of them are trying to establish a cashless society? They want to eliminate cash, because it is too difficult for them to track and trace it.

They are pushing for debit and credit cards to be used and for people to use regulated/centralized financial institutions like PayPal and also the new Facebook coins, because it is easier to track all transactions if it is stored on a centralized and accessible databases.  {We know these centralized organizations are feeding the private information to these 3 letter agencies.}  

They will do the same with Bitcoin. 

Maybe in future we will have to do kyc on most sites ți use crypto, but i think for now we don't need to be worried and i think never will have to do kyc if we have a hardware wallet to use it.

Why panic over something like this op? These kind of things are pretty common in the crypto world(Regulations, laws, proposals etc) trying to restrict or ban crypto usage since ages, but nothing actually changed.

Scammers continue to hack exchanges while investors continue to trade crypto anonymously via exchanges which don't ask KYC. No number of rules can ever destroy the anonymity aspect of the crypto world.