Topic: Goodbye, privacy, goodbye, it was nice while it lasted. - page 4. (Read 2250 times)

Sorry but that's just daydreaming.

Other countries will build something only if it rewards them financially, all businesses in crypto do this only for money, you might not like it but right now that's what 99% of the whole system is about, businesses and authorities will not invest money if there isn't something to be gained from, which usually is more money.
And more financial freedom and more money in taxes are simply contradictory situations. I've seen a lot of those things on how countries will have x and y and z to lose if they become hostile to bitcoin, as a country (we're excluding from this personal finances) what do you have to lose from this, assuming the whole of Europe completely bans crypto, from the government's point of view, and income in taxes, what do they lose? Let's be honest about it, all of us praise the way BTC helps us avoid fiscal control, it's not like crypto businesses are paying billions in taxes, and the money they spend on other things, it's not money made out of thin air it's from people who have invested their money that would have ended being taxed anyhow.

Do you see China falling because they've banned bitcoin?  Why? Won't they be able to produce smartphones, clothes, teacups, or raise pigs because of this?
We're still talking about what Satoshi thought bitcoin would be about and I've never seen a paragraph on how countries that will not adapt to this will crumble to ruin nor how this p2p will revolutionize state affairs.

For me is quite interesting how at the same time people lean towards total libertarianism but at the same time they are trying to bring the authorities into the picture, and in all this mess, despite being willing to go to extreme lengths to cut their control and say in the matters they somehow manage to find a scenario where this will reward them for nonimplication. How that is possible, as I asked you before is beyond me!

Again this is about countries, not about individuals, that's a whole other thing, individuals for example can move, but I'm yet to see a single forum member moving to Salvador to take advantage of taxes or freedom or opportunities. And that is mainly because 99% of the individuals in the world don't really care about 1-5% in taxes as much as they care for something being convenient and not requiring clicking more than two "I accept" buttons, 1 million will take a photo of their ID, 100 will think about installing bisq and one will actually do.

I know it doesn't sound nice, but I know everyone knows deep down that's what's happening, it ain't going to be a utopia as we're heading full speed to one hell of a dystopian future


Why do they have to do something about it? The community is doing this for them at no cost, monero capitalization has dwindled compared to BTC from 1:40 to 1:200, give it a few more years, and you're going to see people asking if Monero has NFTs   When Metaverse!?!


Not if it's more than 10k, all transactions over 10k in value, you will either need to find a buyer willing to fake the value of the car in the contract or make a multi-payment contract, not that many who will agree on it.

Is it just me, or is this entire topic completely ass-backwards?  You can't lose what you never had to begin with.

If you've used an exchange, you lost your privacy the moment you handed your money to someone else to hold for you.  Total strangers you've never met, or even knew the names of, became acutely aware of you and your wealth because you literally gave it to them.  When you withdraw your funds, they can follow the trail.  And then some of you started attaching your real world identities to this wealth, because they asked you to and you were too indoctrinated to say no.  You said goodbye to privacy a long damn time ago.

This is your opportunity to finally learn what privacy really is.

I've been working under the assumption that centralised exchanges have been on borrowed time for a few years now.  Which is why I've been staying away from them.  It was always reasonably likely that things were going to turn out this way.  Ultimately, I think it'll be healthier in the long run if fewer people use custodial services like that.  It was concerning to me that so few people actually saw a problem with the amount of trust required and the amount of privacy surrendered, so if people do suddenly feel disincentivised to rely on third parties, I'd say it's about damn time.  It's kinda the whole point of what we're doing here.  

Welcome to Bitcoin.  It's nice to finally have you on board.  Get your money off the exchanges and allow them to wither and die already.  We can do so much better.

Conversely, the end of that sentence - "from unhosted wallets" - suggests they are talking about multiple transfers, rather than saying "from an unhosted wallet" if they were talking about a single transfer. As you say, it is open to interpretation, but my experience is that generally lawmakers will interpret things in the way that gives them the most power and gives citizens the least freedom.

I think the initial point I made regarding a lower limit was for tax purposes. In the US, when considering foreign currency then you do not pay capital gains on any transaction below $200. Such a limit would immediately make using and spending bitcoin as a currency far more feasible. Rolling in the reporting requirements to this as well as you suggest would also be beneficial. When considering the travel rule for fiat, the limit is anything up to $3,000, or the equivalent in another currency. I'm not entirely sure what the limit is in the EU, but the report we are linking to here seems to suggest it is 1000 EUR. Fairly ridiculous, all things considered, that there will be a $0 limit for taxing and reporting bitcoin transactions.

The thing is, bitcoin is not going anyway. If the EU wants to be hostile towards it, then the EU will simply fall behind. And in another 20 years when other countries have huge cryptocurrency sectors built on personal freedom and non-stifling regulations, then the EU will have to play catch up. Their loss.

Putting in context everything that has been discussed in the thread, we are in a global context of reduction in the use of cash voluntarily by people, who prefer to pay with their cell phone or smartwatch, and the governments are smiling thinking about cashless societies in the future, or with cash replaced by CBDC, whose essential difference with cash is that governments can know what you spend all your money on.

Bitcoin and later currencies like Monero appeared as an alternative to fiat, but if laws like the draft we are talking about are implemented and measures like the one Lucius mentioned regarding privacy coins are taken:


P2p trading will be pretty much useless for the acquisition of goods and services. I think the original idea of Satoshi, and those of us who have dreamed at some point of mass global adoption, would be to be able to spend Bitcoin, perhaps with LN or some other system, in the future for the things we spend fiat on today.

But with these legislations, even if we can acquire some goods and services, the most basic necessities we are not going to be able to acquire without KYC. Ideally, with a Bitcoin-friendly government, a threshold could be set below which no transaction reporting or KYC would be required, for example $100 (I remember reading this idea from o_e_l_e_o), but as it turns out, it doesn't look like this is going to happen.

Let's analyze which of the basic necessities we could pay in the future without KYC:

1) Food. We have all at some point dreamed at some point in time of being able to pay at Walmart or equivalent in the future with Bitcoin. If that ever happens, it will be with KYC. Regarding the number of transactions discussed above, I believe that the IRS will simply use software.



I understand that just as you can set up a trading bot you can set up a program that analyzes the reported movements.

2) Shelter. Forget about paying a mortgage with Bitcoin or paying directly for a house if you have sufficient funds in Bitcoin without KYC. Maybe an undeclared rent, with the potential problems it could cause, we could pay it.

3) Clothing. The same. If you know someone who has a small store and is a bitcoin believer, maybe they will accept Bitcoin payment to buy clothes from you, but it is highly unlikely, because there are going to be fewer and fewer small businesses of this kind left.

4) Transportation. The same. You can maybe buy a second-hand car to a P2P private individual, but nothing more.

The latest news info - UK wants to be a crypto hub and plan to exploit the crypto potential, what about EU - did they still want to commit a crypto suicide with their overregulations? I guess will soon find out?! UK probably made the right choice leaving the EU.

The imprecise way the passage is formulated, it could be interpreted this way (which is problematic). However, from the other parts of the proposal I read, the "1000 € limit" seems to apply to 1) single transactions and 2) transactions which seem to have been splitted to evade the limit, like it is already common when judging if such a limit was evaded with bank transfers.

There is also section 33a of the "whereas" section (the summary at the start, I don't know how these sections are called "correctly" in English):

(Source: Current draft)

The "a transfer" I highlighted is an indication for me that they're indeed talking about a single transfer.

However, the whole part is so imprecisely formulated (it looks like a last minute addition) that if left unchanged it will be probably up to the courts to decide what was meant, and it's possible that some of them would prefer the interpretation you made - that all transfers from unhosted wallets are accumulated (regardless of the moment they were sent) and it must be reported even when there is a single 1 €-transaction which exceeds this limit.

We have to realize that IRS is not responsible for all the trouble we are going through, neither is the person who would go through thousands of papers, a pallet of papers really. That is not responsibility of the person who is working on it.

This is like going to some Sony retail store and making life miserable for some worker there, the CEO of Sony would not even know you exist, they wouldn't care about who you are and what you do, they do not know about their own workers neither, they won't mind and you can do that forever and it would not change their life. It would be the retail worker whose life you are screwing.

Same here, whoever is hired to do that job, go through a pallet of papers, would hate you, but the ones who put the law there wouldn't even care, they wouldn't even be aware that a problem like this exists so it doesn't change anything at all.

So far it is true, they can only do that and can't seem to manage beyond that. So far I feel optimistic that Bitcoin will be even more profitable because the government has opened its eyes to regulations and even collect taxes. Even if in order all transactions can be tracked if ever transactions on exchanges and banks in the form of fiat. In fact I have read if the BTC Mixer service from Coinjoin has also provided support for transactions suspected of money laundering.

I am in the EU, and in my country they have solved it in a way that regulatory agencies have asked all local crypto exchanges to remove such cryptocurrencies from their offer - and they have done so. I see no reason why this should not be a model that others will not follow


In an attempt to remain ostensibly democratic and not follow in China's footsteps, they have been doing so for years - just look at what central bank governors are saying. Now that they see that the thing has gone too far, they will do everything to make Bitcoin as uninteresting as possible for all those who already own it or have planned to do so.

In the recent news that Thailand has banned cryptocurrencies as a method of payment, one could read the explanation that they do so in line with what is happening among others in the EU. It seems to me that they all read from the same manual, the only question is how quickly they will implement some things.

Bitcoin is indeed above government regulations, but each country or government has its own rules or regulations. The government will not fully regulate Cryptocurrency they only regulate the entrance but not for the inside. Don't worry, your personal wallet will still be decentralized and only you can manage it, because you own the private key.

as long as you don't publish your personal wallet address, everything will be safe.
stay away from exchanges that require KYC if you really don't want to be exposed.

Well, like the op rightly said, it's expected, and at least, this puts an end to the unreal believe that bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are above governmental regulations, it's evidently clear now and I honestly feel indifferent.
I personally don't have a problem with them knowing my wallet address or addresses but what I will feel so sad about is if they have access to my wallets(even though its decentralized) as it is with my bank accounts, if this should happen, then maybe decentralization should be taken out of English dictionary cus it failed to exist.

Anyways, I wish this is never passed, but if it's going to be passed, it should take great many years.

Yup, I had read about it, too! Reference, for anyone interested.. (not sure if real, though):


This seems like the only cleartext source for this - I had seen it as a screenshot elsewhere. https://boards.4channel.org/biz/thread/47561034/i-have-a-bot-running-247-buying-and-selling-for-0

Makes sense, indeed.

Nonsense actions always leave unaddressed concerns. Take for instance the Russian address blacklisting from Coinbase. Governments are perpetually trying to figure out ways to control their citizens no matter if their actions are reasonable or not. But as a wise man once said,

The power abuse comes from the impression that you need them for almost everything, especially their money. This aggressive behavior is on years now, as pooya87 has said.

As for Monero, it wouldn't surprise me if they required from centralized exchanges to hand out the customers' view keys, if any does accept it anyway; I thought we had baptized its usage as criminal offense. Notice that these actions bring into the open how faulty it is to rely on a third party.

Something tells me that those who do use it and aren't into it to make a quick buck will sooner or later rise in percentage, and along with it, the P2P exchanging necessity might emerge consequently. Is it currently a period to be hopeful or not, I wonder.

I believe that's where some of us might be wrong. In believing that the government is doing this for the prevention of plebs from being scammed. No, they're doing this because MASS ADOPTION of Bitcoin could mean death to their political strongholds. They didn't understand the underlying nature of Bitcoin until it was too late. The Pandora's Box is open, the government is merely trying to close it.

Reminds me of the guy who claimed to have a trading bot set up to trade constantly all day long with a target of zero profit, just so he could send thousands upon thousands of meaningless trades to the IRS and force someone to waste their time going through it all.

I imagine they are approaching this the same way the approach most of their mass surveillance programs. Mass surveillance isn't used to prevent crimes, terrorism, etc. Mass surveillance is used to control the general population. Far more people use Bitcoin than use Monero, so it becomes the prime target for mass surveillance.

Looks like you are partly right. On closer examination though, it isn't that individual transactions can't be over 1000 EUR, but rather if that person has received over 1000 EUR across all transactions. This gives you a deposit limit of slightly over 0.02 BTC at current prices before you are automatically reported to the authorities.

nope. the MSB(exchange/service provider) has to locally log everything.. with the potential to use analysts and compliance officers employed by the MSB to use their minds, eyes, hands and algorithms to check for suspicious activities. where by if something reaches a certain threshold of suspicious activity of suspected illicit crimes (laundering/hacking/terrorism/tax evasion) THEN it is passed onto authorities

its not a default 'report everything'
if an MSB has 5million users that do 5 transactions a day..
the authorities do NOT get 25million reports a day!! FACT
if 1% of an MSB's users do suspicious things. the authorities might get (0.5%) 125k reports a day, because there is actually a suspicious activity threshold that needs to be met.
this is why MSB have to employ compliance officers and data analysts and have business policies of best practices and train staff.... rather then just a 'forwarding' portal of their entire database to authorities

funny part is certain people are asking innocent users to now use 'mixers' before depositing into an MSB. guess what. that MSB will see the mixer and immediately red flag it as suspect of laundering.

yep sometimes trying to be too careful by giving false iID and mixing, actually makes you more noticeable and worthy of looking into more.

analogy
its like oeleo's/blackhatcoiner's favourite hobby. stalking people.
(second hobby is being the worse ever door-to-door salesmen of an altnet)

by crouching down and hiding behind bushes to hope to not be seen.. the neighbours notice a strange guy sneaking around and report him to the cops.
if he simply walked along the path, standing tall and just followed his victim.. no one would bat an eyelid and no one would be concerned.

EG (watch a genuinely good spy movie)
do you think spies crouch down and hide behind bushes. no. their stalking is less noticeable. they hide in plain sight by not hiding.. by just acting like a normal person taking a casual walk

however oeleo and blackhatcoiner are promoting practices to get you more noticed and flagged as suspicious
their game is to get people reported to then pretend the person got reported because the MSB is over-reaching..
reality is this
yes MSB log details and have a X year statute of limitations on how long they can keep that info. but if you are doing nothing suspicious. the authorities never get a report on you and that data gets deleted after X years.
however do things like use mixers and give fake ID 'to preserve privacy' will get you flagged by the MSB they will look into you and investigate you and decide if your worthy of being reported

I understood the proposal a bit different: for every transaction to an exchange/payment processor/other service provider you have to provide the identity of the sender, but only if the transaction is over 1000 € it must be reported automatically; however, the information must be transmitted by the service provider to the authorities "upon request", and there are other cases where a report can or should be sent by the service provider (if it's suspicious to be linked to criminal activity). I agree however with the second part - definitively, there would be more cases of blocked/seized accounts.

I forgot if it already was linked here, but this is the current draft proposal. I'm referring to article 16 (4a):


To answer KevinMiles' question, I would say: For people who don't transact large quantities of crypto and already are KYCed, not much will change. But if you make a living with crypto, above all with trading, arbitrage and the like (which often will mean transacting large quantities) life will be more difficult and you should be very careful about segregating wallets and really evaluate thoroughly the services you use. For example, don't combine EU-regulated exchanges with small "unregulated" altcoin exchanges or DeFi apps; and if you want to use them, segregate regulated/unregulated funds strictly.

A point which came up in a discussion in the Spanish forum is the consequences for Lightning, which can have also problematic aspects. Private and non-commercial LN nodes should be safe, but for example EU exchanges which also are connected to Lightning (like Bitstamp) could have to restrict the node to their own customers (i.e. they could be used for deposits/withdrawals, but _not_ anymore for "supporting the network", as they would have to identify all senders/receivers of the transfer they route which is obviously unfeasible).

I don't think Bitcoin over Lightning Network will be looked at any different from first-layer Bitcoin. If a service provider accepts crypto payments, nothing changes. You will still be able to do your thing without KYC. If the coins get converted to fiat, third parties are required to request KYC, no matter what asset you use to pay. I hope exchanges will notice an outflux of users, but I remain skeptical. Centralized services will think of some new offers, give out some free coins or airdrops, and the majority will be happy to go along with it.     

If this will be implemented as described, I'm interested to see the bookkeeping required to enforce it.
Just Bitcoin is currently doing roughly 250,000 transactions per day, and they will have to somewhat manually go through all of them to check for 'illicit activities' and that all of them are somehow linked to a real-world identity of someone. Right? Then add on top of this all the 'fast blockchains' such as Ethereum.

What I find interesting is that Kraken recently implemented Lightning. I am not saying that LN is 100% untraceable, but it does make things a lot harder. Sure, this bill is a legal thing that stands above anything that we can implement on the technical side, since it can basically state 'we won't accept your deposit (LN or not) if you don't provide full KYC and believable origin of fudns'. But on the other hand, there is no 'KYUTXO' because LN has no notion of UTXOs. Also I don't get how they want to handle Monero, since the transactions aren't public. Will they just ban it? Many open questions.

I really hope that as well!

This is very interesting. I assume Bitcoin wasn't banned from the start; so did you experience major changes in how cryptocurrency is perceived, used and handled in every-day life after the ban? Was P2P popular in your country before and how did the ban affect it? Which platform is preferred / go-to choice for those P2P trades?

I'd agree that centralized entities have helped people to get into Bitcoin more easily than having to find users P2P who'd sell them some of this good stuff. But for one, a worldwide ban is completely off the books here, right? This is a EU thing to fully be able to track payments, not a ban. And even if; honestly, Bitcoin is P2P money. It's not meant to be in the same system as banks and similar service providers. I like to compare Bitcoin to P2P file sharing through Bittorrent. No matter how much centralized hosting providers, movie rentals and software vendors hate it, it continues to work and chug along.
I don't know if only cypherpunks would use Bitcoin if it were to get back to its P2P roots; that remains to be seen, but I don't think so.

Couldn't have said it better, that's the spirit! What we can do is let merchants that we frequently use, know that we'd like them to accept Bitcoin payments directly. It starts with companies selling 'Bitcoin products' such as hardware wallets.
Personally, I've always considered moving to a place with better privacy laws in general if / when the current place gets too bad.

  MBS -Exchanges sooner or later will care more  about privacy coins or their business model will die.  Cryptos like  Grin No adress ,No amounts seen is only way to go. Fight or fly.