Topic: Goodbye, privacy, goodbye, it was nice while it lasted. (Read 2249 times)

That was at the beginning. But the recent network upgrade has changed all of that (apparently) by removing the trusted setup. Some said Zcash was compromised from the start, as the company (Electric Coin Company) introduced a backdoor to help governments circumvent/bypass privacy features. I guess the only true privacy coin is Monero with its proven track record of development and innovation.

Governments don't like privacy, so they will do their best to bring the revolution down to the ground. It'll be up to us to help support privacy-preserving technologies to prevent governments from winning in the long run. As long as decentralization prevails, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts

I'd just like to point out that Zcash always relied on a set of private keys being created and exchanged securely in a so-called 'ceremony' made by a set of people (developers) when they started the project. I wouldn't trust a dime to a system like this.

Apparently, they planned to move away from this in May (last month), but the text is still in past tense, so I have no idea if this ever happened.

Of course it is a future and one that is definitely realisable as it favours the government. The silent reality about it is, its not going to be effective only in the EU although, it might lay its foundation there in the EU but, would be slowly adopted by other regions, Unions and nations in our world, given the fact that its a government favoured orientation and almost all government looks towards crypto regulation. Although, the policy adaptation would be largely dependent on the success of the intent in the EU and there is a very little chance for it not to be effective on the exchanges being a profit organisation that would do what it takes for them go be functional in certain regions and in compliance with the government. This is generally bad for privacy concerned investors but in all, I think they can't end the will of crypto enthusiasts for cryptos and its operations.

Too much regulations will do more harm than good for the growth of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies on the market. Governments want to abolish privacy because they want to prevent people from gaining true freedom and financial independence. It's a good thing most cryptocurrencies are decentralized, or they would've been easier targets by mainstream governments. Most people don't care about their privacy these days, so they will use CBDCs even if such currencies will be under the full scope of governments and central banks alike. After all, most people don't have nothing to hide.

Fortunately, privacy won't go anywhere soon thanks to anonymous cryptocurrencies like Monero and Zcash. While governments can impose regulations to restrict or even ban the use of privacy coins, they can't be enforced because of the decentralized and censorship-resistant nature of crypto/Blockchain tech. I hope crypto remains that way in order to minimize government's power over the people as much as possible. Just my thoughts

All they need to do is make it illegal for any business or bank to dea lwith Crypto currencies other than governments own digital currency. Game over.
I'm only surprised the yhaven't done it yet. They are slowly moving to strip us all of every privacy.

government cannot control bitcoin (the technology) just like they cant tell a bottle of wine to stop being swallowed.

however governments can regulate PEOPLE. and laws apply to people. because people can be punished and people can read the law.
(bitcoin(and wine) has no brain or eyes. it cant read paper laws. it cant be punished. but people can)

governments can regulate businesses(run by people). and create laws obided by people.
people can try to evade the law. but at risk of punishment if found. and governments can find ways to find people (like how silk road creator was found even with things like tor, proxies)..

yes the laws on alcohol (1920's prohibition.. and under age drinking) has not been effective. and people still drunk it. ... though many people were also caught and punished

yes the laws on drugs ('war on drugs') has not been effective. and people still got high ... though many people were also caught and punished.

..
so although drugs are still available, and alcohol is still available even to underage people and even when it was prohibited in the last century... and bitcoin will still be available .. people using them are limited in their freedom and openness about their utility of it

..
many businesses are not lobbying against it. because these limitations become opportunities. if they can afford the fines or afford the licencing to become legitimate merchants of the limited use items. they can monopolise the market and not have much competition.

regulations are the opposite of the 'free market'.. but hey.. thats capitalism

(im against monopoly and capitalism, and where regulations are used to stifle growth/openness.. but i atleast understand it.)

I don't think governments will succeed because of the decentralized and censorship-resistant nature of crypto/Blockchain tech. Regulations can only be enforced on centralized exchanges and centralized wallet providers. Anything that's not centralized would be out of a single government's jurisdiction. As Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies become more popular, governments will implement stricter regulations in order to minimize its growth worldwide. What ultimately matters is decentralization. As long as Bitcoin is able to stay that way, it will last a lifetime.



Digital Fiat will mark the end of an era for privacy. After all, governments will have more control over people's finances. Fortunately, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will be there to save the day. With decentralization at the forefront of crypto, I don't think privacy will fade away into oblivion anytime soon. Just my thoughts

It's just a matter of time until every countries in the world have their own strict regulations against crypto. Actually, it was already expected to happen in 2022 since years ago, including in my country, which isn't in Europe. I'm also fearful about the decisions being taken by authorities, because it's certain common users will suffer the most, be it through abusive taxes, excessive bureaucracy or total invasion of privacy.

The only example of country we have which apparently stood against bureaucrats interests was El Salvador and they are in a very delicate situation with IMF. The bureaucrats used El Salvador example to teach a lesson to another countries not follow the same steps of the small central american country. Unfortunatelly they may have success, because what countries would be crazy to exchange the support and loans from IMF for adopting a friendly stance towards a volatile digital currency which can bring losses on short-medium term for investors?

I see this as a good thing. Not only will this put centralisation into the meat grinder but it will also force us to find better ways to decentralise. The government has been trying as hard as they can to put Bitcoin and other crypto into a corner and has never succeeded. Centralised exchanges are and always have been a bad idea which goes against what crypto, especially Bitcoin, stands for.

Now is the time for more innovation in the area of decentralisation and DeFi especially.

Our governments have absolutely no control over our coins unless we give them control. Do not let them spook you into giving up control.

Never give up, never surrender.

This makes no sense; Bitcoin doesn't care about what volume is transacted. In fact, a transaction spending 1BTC or one spending 0.01BTC are almost identical on the blockchain. And running nodes is very inexpensive and easy to do, as well - one of the greatest advantages of Bitcoin over other cryptocurrencies which need expensive hardware and networking. This is essential to run Bitcoin infrastructure in developing countries, like franky mentioned earlier.

Here is my thread about building a node from spare and used parts under $50: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/guide-how-to-run-a-bitcoin-core-full-node-for-under-50-bucks-5364742

So I don't understand what you mean with 'Africa or some other Asian countries could [not] carry Bitcoin alone'.

I mean strictly from economic power, so taking the GDP of the top countries instead of on a per capita basis. Even if the population of Africa might be greater than other regions, if African spending power isn't enough, then they can't use Bitcoin at the volume they'd need in order to compete with the larger economies. Meaning, if the US/EU/UK/China banned Bitcoin, I don't think Africa or some other Asian countries could carry Bitcoin alone.

I agree that most exchanges don't need to lobby against regulations. They're already so regulated that there's no point in lobbying against it. Damage is done.

depends what you mean..

africa has more population than the EU,UK and US combined.
yep eu=450m, US 330m, uk 70m=850m
africa=1.2bill


so if africa was to become pro bitcoin. then they can outpace the userbase of the US/EU market that currently dominates bitcoin.

south america has more population than the US OR EU

asia has more population than the rest of the world.. so excluding china. still leaves 3billion people that outpace majority of any 'developed' nations combined..

the only issue is not regulation worry of developed countries.. but the very fact that the over half the world population that could have used bitcoin the most(poor/unbanked).but cant use it due to not government politics but developer politics of not wanting bitcoin to be 'digital cash for the unbanked'

its the dev politics that want bitcoin to be a government recognised 'world reserve' where its recognised enough to 'go legit' and be regulated. which then also has consequences as described in my previous post..

many people in this topic have mentioned or atleast thought 'where is the lobbying to fight against regulation..'  well the main exchanges are not fighting against regulation. the main exchanges are already regulated because they handle fiat. and so regulating crypto is not a hurdle for them. infact they now see it as a benefit. as it stops new players becoming competitors by having a barrier of entry.
yep most exchanges want regulation because it 'legitimises' their operation and makes them have a corporate level of 'trust' in their custodianship while preventing new competitors from just swooping in and stealing their customers.
so if your wondering where the exchanges have been.. they have been lobbying to governments. but lobbying for regulation. not against it

My concern is that the major players (US, EU, China) will either collude with one another to oust Bitcoin or act independently to regulate all cryptocurrencies to such a degree that investors flock to other assets. At that point, it'll be impossible for the rest of the world to compete and out maneuver the larger economies because of how much capital they control. There aren't enough day-to-day users of Bitcoin that would allow the price to be maintained (at it's ATH or lower) if the institutional investors are gone.

I wouldn't mind seeing a pro-BTC coalition. Problem is that most countries are on the wrong side of the issue.

circa 2009-2014 bitcoin remained outside the realms of government jurisdiction.
it was by nature classified as a product/good(asset) where traders were dealt with as private citizens and merchants.

then when it became declared 'currency'(asset) it then became within the realm of jurisdiction of government regulation. because CURRENCY fell into the regulations of SEC/FINRA/FINCEN/FCA

where by traders were deemed not as private citizens/merchants, but as MSB(money service businesses)
..

the next rabbit out of the hat. is accepting taxes/court fines/lobbying/political campaigns and other government payments in crypto. which is the 'legal tender' side of things.
the negative affect is that this also comes with more regulations directly impacting the usage of crypto falling into the jurisdiction of governments.
EG needing to KYC payments and tracing of taint to make sure that laundering and criminal activity is not linked to funds received by legit payment services.

..
in short when people got excited that countries were recognising crypto as a currency and then deeming it as legal tender.. those 2 events have and will come with negative consequences.

bitcoin would have been better off without the 'currency' and 'legal tender' recognition by governments.
we (as crypto users) would still use it the same in trade and exchange. but the laws of 'currency' and 'legal tender' would not apply

EG
a car is not currency.. its a store of value that can be traded.. and by not being 'currency' even though people trade cars every day.. and think of cars as an investment. fincen and SEC dont get involved in car trades

Yep.  I think that's the reason most places haven't come down super-hard on Bitcoin.  If they drive usage underground, it becomes more resilient by nature.  So instead they chip away gently with KYC at the on/off ramps.

I think m2017 is a little bit confused about the definition of Fiat here. With 'Fiat forms of money', he means paper and coins. Cash is actually pretty much anonymous, indeed.

This is an interesting topic that you brought up; we've got a bunch of historic examples of prohibition and they didn't all really work out to be honest. So I agree that governments don't like to lose control over the money, but I'm not sure whether they dare to try the prohibitionist route, it can be quite risky.



Honestly, I believe prohibition of Bitcoin could actually have the chance to become the biggest driver of innovation in privacy tools and developments in and on top of BTC.

Succeed in what? Regulating it? They've overstated with KYC in centralized exchanges, wherein most of the users buy and sell from. They already have enough information to control them. Part of the United States' national spending goes straight to Chainalysis.

Whether you pay in cash, via bank account or via PayPal, it's the same currency. In fact, using fiat digitally is traceable. Much better for a government.

Undoubtedly governments will continue to try to regulate crypto. Will they be able to fully succeed, that is the question. In principle, people don't need their permission or approval to use crypto, and nothing prevents them from using it explicitly.

And here I disagree with you. Fiat forms of money are already being rapidly superseded by the digital version as more and more people pay with plastic cards and mobile apps. The proportion of people still paying with cash has been decreasing every year and will continue to decrease. And since fiat is practically impossible to control (just try to track the movement between people) and is 100% anonymous (there is no binding of banknotes to a specific person), then with the departure of fiat, society's finances will turn out to be more controllable and traceable.

Actually, it's quite predictable. Nothing good is expected, because it is not profitable for governments if people use crypto on a massive scale. Therefore, they will prohibit, limit and demand taxes from this.

Agree. But not everyone is knowledgeable about crypto/Blockchain tech, so most people will give away their privacy as long as they get convenience in return. While it's technically possible to "bypass the crazy laws", I wouldn't recommend doing so since that would mean facing jail time or fines by the government. Of course, privacy is a human right. But you would have to decide whenever you want to sacrifice your freedom to obtain privacy/anonymity or all the other way around. There's always a way of getting caught even if you use the most decentralized and anonymous methods ever devised.

Sadly, governments will continue to implement stricter regulations against crypto/Blockchain tech in order to stay in power. Fiat will always prevail because it has the backing of governments and central banks. We'll see how EU's moves against crypto will turn out to be in the long run. Innovation/growth will surely diminish within EU-based countries, forcing investors to go elsewhere with their money. As long as crypto stays decentralized, nothing else matters. Just my thoughts