Topic: Goodbye, privacy, goodbye, it was nice while it lasted. - page 6. (Read 2437 times)

This is true, plus that's just Europe and not the whole world. As someone who doesn't live in Europe, I do not care about what their laws about crypto is at all. To say that "crypto as we know it would be gone" requires the whole world to jump in on this, not just Europe. There are like 5 billion people give or take that doesn't really get impacted about this at all, nobody cares about this in that part of the world.

Only the European continent and the places that gets impacted by this would care about it. Which means that at the very very worst case (and not even that) it would only cause a "crypto as we know it would be gone in EUROPE" and that's it, nothing more than that.

Thanks for clearing that out.

And what happens when someone sends coins from his own unhosted wallet to his KYC`d exchange account in order to exchange it to fiat? Has to prove that his won wallet is his own, or what?

Brian Armstrong - Coinbase CEO said that "Moreover, any time you receive 1,000 euros or more in crypto from a self-hosted wallet, Coinbase will be required to report you to the authorities. This applies even if there is no indication of suspicious activity."

when you sign up to any exchange you are only allowed 1 account.(usually)
with this account you will need to be KYC'd
with this account they may provide you with 'use-once' deposit addresses and you can send funds from multiple addresses to the address currently reserved as your current deposit address

so if you have lots of coins from lots of mined blocks/sources. it does not matter because when you 'spend them' to deposit(request pool(s) to send them to deposit address) to an exchange the exchange will receive them and deem them as YOUR value

EG
mining pool A bc1qbladeblah \
mining pool B bc1qdeedeebla -  miners personal wallet -> exchange deposit address
mining pool C bc1qladeedade /

mining pool A bc1qbladeblah \
mining pool B bc1qdeedeebla --> exchange deposit address
mining pool C bc1qladeedade /

in both cases YOU as the exchange account holder are KYC linked to that account. meaning deposits into that deposit address are deemed as value assigned to you.. as you are the person thats deemed the owner of the funds

..
its the same as if you were arbitraging

exchange A<->exchange B

because you as the exchange account holder, of accounts in both exchange A and B
although the transaction appears to be a straight swap from A to B. they both deem YOU as the instigator/owner/controller of funds because you are the one making the service request for withdrawal /deposit

This is sad for Europeans resident, it fast becoming some sort of war between government and crypto-currency (anonymity, security, freedom and privacy). This would definitely be a blow to every Crypto enthusiast out staying in Europe, and this is even an infringement on an individual right, I think we have that right of privacy and if I want to send payment anonymously it should not be restricted, well that goes for Exchange.
Correct me if I am wrong P2P would still work even if the ban is in place, like in my country where there is a ban on crypto-currency transaction, and P2P has been a route for many.

What is DRAFT saying about when someone is using multiple exchange addresses for mining, which is common practice. The miner will have to provide the ID copy of the mining pools owners from which addresses the coins are received, or what These regulations are total madness!

There are no customers because we're not talking about purchasing goods.
The whole thing is for financial transfers only, where the originator is the sender and the beneficiary the receiver, in financial sanctions there is no other entity other than the service provider.

DIRECTIVE 2011/83 is clear on this, there is nothing debatable here:
   

This is a unilaterally implemented directive, you can't go over this definition without first repelling this, and good luck trying to touch the Consumer Rights Directive, it's political suicide.

stompix.. the wording is clear.. it doesnt mention "customer"
so its not a "the customer is the merchant"

it says things like this (in the amendments document)

so the payment service treats the merchant as the "beneficiary' (receiver of funds and holder of the wallet)
and the customer(person buying a product from a merchant) is the originator (sender of the funds)

There are two different drafts, mentioning the same thing, one superseding the other
This is the one from 2019 the MICA regulation, the same paragraph that o_e_l_e_o posted
52020PC0595,

Article 3
Definitions


But of course, he will find a way to weasel out of this, I wonder how pathetic it will be.


True about merchants accepting bitcoin directly, but there is still hope this will not be implemented even for third-party services.
You see, the "crypto-asset service provider" doesn't provide per current definitions those services to the customer, so at least till the current date as we speak, the customer is the merchant, all regulations apply to him, not to the shopper.
"on behalf the third party", this third party is Walmart or whatever Casino.

As long as MICA won't clearly specify through definitions and stick to the originator this definition is currently covered only in electronic money transfers and does not relate to any purchasing of services.

For your previous post about no exemptions:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2022-0081_EN.html

It seems to me that regulation of cryptocurrencies will sooner or later affect everything - exchanges, wallets, verification of addresses, and tax notices as a gift. The way out of this situation could be private coins such as Monero or others like it. DEX exchanges are already appearing and will begin to function well by then. Everyone will make their own choice, be law-abiding and have crypto ID or fight it.

um yes they dont !approve" of things at the draft stage... instead they have "readings"


what you are now quoting. is not a "DRAFT"
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CJ12-PR-704888_EN.pdf
its an amendment report 'reading' of the draft.. not the actual draft

this is not the draft. its just a subset of possible amendments to make to the draft

what you are quoting is not the full document with full explanation and detail. you are just reference only the chapters they want to change.

and no i doubt you even dared read the entire draft and then compared all referenced amendments to see how it changes the wording. i predict you just copy and pasted my exert of the draft to google search for it and then see its not the same link as your are looking at (your subset) and thought 'oh look franky is not reading what im reading'
well of course because i am looking at the whole thing to get the full context.

but it is now funny how you and your chums are NOW using the words "service providers" and trying to hide your previous opinion of "non-custodial wallets"

very revealing

and funny at times..
your buddy, trying to input some nonsense so that he can try backing up your nonsense
EG

sorry but here is the thing. its again not about getting unhosted wallets to obtain info.
its about service providers which act as payment services where the private key owner is not the service provider
take for instance, if an exchange had a cold wallet 'owned by a trust'(legally separate entity) where the exchange itself(their website/server) was just a 'watch-only' service seeing deposits..
the exchange still needs to KYC the customer...
this does not mean the cold wallet software needs to. nor does the legal entity 'trust' of the cold wallet need to

here is the actual wording from the amendments

why would they do this amendment.
to as i suggested. to stop exchanges putting their cold wallet into separate legal entities to pretend they are not a crypto asset service by only being a watch only service.
yep they thought ahead and closed a loophole exchanges could have used to pretend they dont handle funds so they dont have to KYC..
the important thing is that payment service providers are the ones required. not the private key holder

It comes down to this: If the bill passes, each centralized service provider in the EU (exchanges, casinos, payment processors) will have to perform stricter KYC on their customers. Solution: Stop using centralized third-party services. It's that simple, but for many people the alternatives aren't going to be that attractive. How do you trade P2P in a place where almost no one uses Bitcoin and you need fiat? Bisq? Maybe.

Two things can happen:

• People will give in and accept this as the new norm because it's easier.
• We will witness a greater shift from centralized third parties to proper decentralized non-custodial solutions.

   
It's in human nature to take the easy route. Hopefully, there will be some resistance.

This was always their goal. Full KYC for every account, every wallet, every address, every transaction. Things like non-KYCed accounts at centralized exchanges are already fast disappearing. Either you submit everything to the authorities, or you don't. There are no half-measures; no middle-ground. If you don't want every single satoshi you own being tracked and monitored and recorded, then you need to stop using centralized services entirely and use bitcoin as it was intended - as peer to peer electronic cash, free from third parties.

EU citizens can write or call their representatives in the European Parliament, but whether or not that makes any difference is anyone's guess. The European Parliament strikes me as the kind of institution where the representatives care even less about the views of the people they claim to represent than national parliaments. As for people outside the EU, there is probably nothing you can do directly unless you want to pretend to be from the EU and email them anyway. Maybe contact exchanges which operate in the EU and ask them to actually fight this rather than roll over and accept it and sell out their users like they usually do?

                Bloodyhell, these people just never run out of things to do in order to satisfy their own agendas. These bastards just sugarcoats the crap they do and get away with it all the time. And just when mass adoption is increasing faster than ever before, this comes. What great timing of coincidence. Not everyone is great with techy stuff and this fact may slow the mass adoption down again. May even make existing crypto enthusiasts to bid farewell. This is really infuriating.

Privacy is a strange feature. As once you lose control of it it is very difficult to have it back.
In this situation, a compulsory read is the following essay from Giacomo Zucco:
A treatise on privacy

It enlightened me on multiple aspects of the subject.

You're just spreading FUD now. What do crypto fundamentals have to do with value? Bitcoin was never intended to be a speculative asset. Bitcoin's fundamental values remain unchanged even if its value drops to $1.


More serious than China banning crypto completely?

They just initiated a war, did they not?  They are attacking us with all these Know Your Customer like laws and the backslash they get is their laws are a HUGE incentive for more privacy oriented tools and software.  First was Bitcoin and they tried attacking it directly.  Then came the Mixers, Coin Joins and all of this and they tried labeling them all as 'potential illicit activity'.

Recently Mixers, Coin Joins and Lightning Network came under attack.  And as of now they are trying to direct an attack towards Bitcoin directly.  Slowly, just like the Centralized Exchanges.  But for now, it looks indirect.  With Exchanges, first came the Tier 0 accounts with Verification Thresholds and now most of them turned into mandatory Know Your Customer for all accounts, with no Threshold.  It was only few years ago when you could have registered on at least 5 different Exchanges having Tier 0 (Unverified) account status.  Today there are only a handful.  Binance got cut off the list only recently as it now enforces KYC.  Now here comes Know Your Transaction, the next step.

If some governments started requesting tax reports for EVERY on chain transaction, even staking and the European Union is willing to go as far as requesting Know Your Customer or Know Your Transaction information for every single transaction made through third party payment processors.  Some countries have maximum limits for cash transactions.  Then making Know Your Transaction information exchange mandatory with a threshold is very close.  Give them an inch, guess how much they will take.  I feel attacked, this is an attack on all of us.

Moreover.  See how much they are shrinking the financial freedom even with banks.  In the last decade everything went nuts.  Declare everything you own.  Prove where the money came from.  Prove what you have done with it.  We recommend card over cash.  Want to buy Gold?  Oops, there is a threshold for anonymity.  Want to buy Gold using your life savings after working for decades for our system?  We have to check your history first and label you a criminal before we clear your name out.  Use card and you get discounts.  Use card and you get free points!  Give up your privacy and we reward you for it.  Pennies worth of rewards, but you will do it anyway because this is how much you think your privacy is worth.  Freaking nuts, I am telling you!

As Bitcoin or Cryptocurrency users, is there any way we can oppose this?  Any way non EU members can help by opposing this law or does the voting and all happen among these fossil leaders and decision makers out of who most have no idea how Bitcoin even works?

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Not at the moment, no. But there are self-hosted payment processors such as BTCPay, which presumably would not fall under this legislation since there is no third party involved. And if this legislation is going to make every other payment processor in the EU start requesting KYC and proof of where the coins came from for every transaction from buying a coffee to paying for an Uber, then perhaps self-hosted solutions which bypass this will just become more attractive and more popular.

No, it's not.

The foundations of cryptocurrency, as an idea, are very strong. It is well known that peer-to-peer, decentralized networks are unstoppable. Of course and they can be regulated, but there's a limit. If you deposit your coins to big, centralized exchanges you fall back on the central point of failure. Don't. Use a DEX. You'll always be able to move them across pockets without anyone's permission.

I know no fundamentals that include the transition from crypto to fiat currency. This is what's going to get harder to do.

Oh, OK. The fact is that I can't imagine today any large company, such as a supermarket, as we were talking about in the example, accepting payments directly, and, in addition, non-custodial wallets using maximum privacy. I can hardly imagine a supermarket like Walmart in Europe without using a payment processor and using Electrum via Tor, or a similar system.


Traditionally in Europe they are more social democratic than in the USA, which has some good pros, but one of the cons is giving up degrees of freedom voluntarily so that the State has more power, as it would be in this case regarding surveillance and control.

Well, it depends on how the merchant is set up, as I explained here:


If a merchant is directly accepting bitcoin in exchange for goods or services, then they are simply a merchant who accepts bitcoin, and are not a "crypto-asset service provider". If a merchant, however, uses a payment processor to accept bitcoin in exchange for goods or services, then the payment processor is a "crypto-asset service provider", providing services on behalf of the merchant, and are therefore obligated to collect KYC and information about the coins you are spending.

That's my understanding, at least, but not being from the EU I am hardly an expert on EU law, and if EU politicians are anything like US politicians, they will openly twist and interpret the wording to mean whatever they want it to mean.

I see what you are saying, but maybe I don't want to be part of their system. Maybe the whole point I got involved in bitcoin in the first is was to get away from their system. Banning my bitcoin wallet and addresses from their centralized system achieves nothing, since I have never and will never use it to interact with their centralized system in the first place.

Peer to peer trading existed long before any centralized exchange, and it will continue to exist long after these centralized exchanges become nothing less than banks. There will always be a way to trade bitcoin.