Topic: Goodbye, privacy, goodbye, it was nice while it lasted. - page 8. (Read 2437 times)

So now seems that I have to move everything from my trustwallet, binance, and my Trezor into Bitcoin core to be able to be still free.
It's gonna be interesting how things will go with the collectables like Cas coins etc.
I don't like to KYC but if my coins will be locked and unusable probably will go trough the KYC.
You can always have some coins a side for extreme situations.

I don't agree that the market reacted to the news of EU voting. It's a correction started by S&P 500 like many times before.



You can see that the weekly top of S&P 500 correlates with the pump on bitcoin and it's the same with yesterday's correction.
I don't believe that companies like amazon losing 2% meant their investors were scared of EU crypto regulations.

Perfect, thank you for such detailed responses man.

1) yes because they know you. they are not looking to know your taint/previous receipts/how you got the coin. they just need to know about the 'you to them' part. because they are receiving coin they need to know you so they can ensure you dont just make 60 accounts trying to do £100 payments 60x times to get around not being noticed when you want to convert £60k with them

2)yes. the draft is not about making bitcoin core suddenly require KYC. its not about changing bitcoin transaction formats or changing the blockchain. its just about the payment services knowing their customers.

what you will find would change.. is if you were to swap value for instance to WBTC(binance pegged sidechain btc) or GBTC(greyscale bitcoin trust shares) those would want to know all trades and transactions with KYC applied to each transaction

because binance and greyscale are 'significant issuers of crypto-assets' (pegged coins) they will need to keep trade/kyc history

Just for clarity, I use Bitcoin Core to store most of my stash (since 2014)…..


1.) If I was to send 2BTC to a centralised exchange in Europe that I am KYC’d with, will they accept those bitcoin from my ‘non custodial’ bitcoin wallet & allow me to sell & withdraw fiat to a linked bank account?

2.) If I buy 2BTC on for example Bitstamp & withdraw them to my ‘non custodial’ wallet is that acceptable?

I’m not even residing in an EU country, just curious incase similar rules are enforced in the UK. Assume I live in an EU country though when responding.

there are also things like employing supervisors/compliance officers that specialise and trained in KYC/AML
the draft bill actually goes into detail of expected expenditure for a business to be fully compliant
the EUR50k if just a licence fee. kind of like a deposit. . there are other costs separate from that. including non-compliance fines

Just a quick comment to say thank you to franky1.

That is a top post my friend, thanks for going to extreme lengths to confirm exactly what this will entail. It doesn’t seem so bad now after all, does it.

First of all, you are the one who referred to me as the topic creator. You saying I'm playing third person is just one more of your bullshits.

Second, you don't need to use capital letters, that on the internet means you are shouting.

Third: I'm going to put you, for the second time, on ignore, the first time I took you out just for the laughs. This time I doubt I will take you out.

Ok so it's clear, this is not about chasing down non-custodials, think even the EU at least would know the futility of cracking down on that (and they're all about open source these days aren't they?).

The thing that surprises me though is the low capital requirement to be a service provider. Little over 1 Bitcoin and you could handle transfers for someone else. I call that ease of doing business, or am I missing out on something?

first of all YOU are the topic creator.. no need to play third person when its obviously me saying YOU should have quoted the draft instead of silly media

also i actually copy and pasted from the draft.. it clearly shows the classifications of what the service providers are

also
oh look coindesk.com

when you realise that coindesk is a sister company of coinbase and multiple other businesses and service providers. you have to take their articles into context of their editorial bias towards their sister companies

as for other media.. they just sheep follow and copy and paste the first news releaser and dont do any proper source checking.

also, you quoted coingeek. excuse me but your quoting the calvin ayres/CSW group.. seriously.. GET BETTER SOURCES


so please dont use sources of media/social media.. instead if you want to talk about pessimism of a draft bill QUOTE THE DRAFT BILL

They can also force many of non-custodial wallets to stop their service. Most of non-custodial wallets are connected to centralized servers and can shut down at any time.
For example, trustwallet is a non-custodial wallet. But there is no guarantee that it will work the next time you want to make a transaction.
As stated by pooya87, if you want a wallet which you can be sure that it will always work, you can use bitcoin core. It's open source and no centralized server is involved.

The topic creator isn't quoting coinbase articles. You are right that it is better to go to the current draft paper, but all the news agree on the same thing, and I do not trust your interpretative ability of the draft paper because I know your lenghty arguments interpreting in a peculiar way.

the topic creator should not be quoting coinbase articles.. but instead the actual draft paper..

the 3 main things the draft ACTUALLY is concentrating on are these:
payment service providers(exchanges, mixers, custodians, 'professional financial advice services' shopping cart middlemen services)
and
ICO creators

and
stablecoin issuers (e-money tokens)

its not about person to person transactions using decentralised/non custodial/bitcoin wallets. its not about person to merchant/retailers transactions. its not about blockchain transactions.. its not about mining pools or asics or asic farm owners. its not about software developers

its about payment into regulated services like exchanges, its about financial advisers and payment service businesses. its about businesses or people creating new ICO(premine/airdrop/purchase of issued tokens) that want to be listed on exchanges or offer their own swap/exchange/payment/purchase service

as for having to get 'wallets' include KYC. this is not about normal cryptocurrencies or existing cryptocurrencies. its about what they refer to as e-money tokens which translates to stable coins

here is the classification of crypto asset service providers

Crypto-asset service provider authorised for the following crypto-asset services:

Crypto-asset service      Type of crypto-asset services                         Minimum capital requirements
providers
Class 1                         –reception and transmission of orders            EUR50k
                                     on behalf of third parties; and/or
                                   –providing advice on crypto-assets; and/or
                                   –execution of orders on behalf of third
                                     parties; and/or
                                   –placing of crypto-assets.

Class 2                         Crypto-asset service provider authorised        EUR125k
                                   for any crypto-asset services under class 1
                                   and:
                                   –custody and administration of crypto-assets
                                     on behalf of third parties

Class 3                        Crypto-asset service provider authorised for   EUR150k
                                  any crypto-asset services under class 2 and:
                                  –exchange of crypto-assets for fiat currency
                                    that is legal tender;
                                  –exchange of crypto-assets for other
                                    crypto-assets;
                                  –operation of a trading platform for crypto-assets.

as you can see it does NOT mention:
decentralised non-custody wallet developers
nor person-person private transactions
not person to merchant/retailer transactions

a retailer does not need to take KYC info for all transactions. but if its using a payment service to convert to fiat(EG bitpay) then bitpay will require to KYC of both the retailer and the customer

At the end of the day, the person will still need to use some centralized service to be able to spend bitcoin.

---

I'm not particularly surprised by these measures, this was something expected to happen sooner or later, just seeing that they've been asking for KYC for a long time, so what did people expect? did you expect governments to be in favor of anonymity? what would be the point of just requiring KYC on exchanges and leaving other services without any monitoring or control?

You do have a point here, but I think that they can easily implement (if not done already, I don't have Trezor) in a way that the wallet/accounts part of the suite doesn't interact with the HW if you don't want to, at maintenance/firmware updates. The wallet part will have to comply, but you can use Electrum instead.

And if the hardware wallet makers choose to ruin their credibility and business by being overzealous at asking KYC / reporting, there's always the choice of using proper cold storage (although it may not be great for non-technical people, I know...)

I am already using hardware wallet, what if Trezor is forced to enforce these rules if they want to do business?
A software update from them which ruins our privacy, this ain't difficult if the government really wants it to be.

I like to think of privacy and (de)centralization in terms of degrees instead of just being black and white (either centralized or decentralized).
For example the decentralized exchanges we see that rely on a company and have a centralized authority taking a fee from each trade aren't fully decentralized but they can't be called centralized either. I would give it a rate of 8 out of 10 for decentralization.

Same with wallets.
For example we have blockstream's green wallet that has a default 2of2 multi-sig setup where you depend on their servers to spend your money, or to sync your wallet the default server is theirs and nothing else. So it can't be called fully decentralized or fully non-custodial or fully privacy-friendly. If the defaults were used all rates will be 0 out of 10.
Electrum in comparison gives you full control over your keys and you don't rely on a single server but it still doesn't provide full privacy. I'd give it 10 for decentralization, 10 for being non-custodial (9 for their multi-sig) but 5 for privacy (can be improved by running Tor or your own server).

People just have to learn the pros and cons of everything they use.

They will only be able to target centralized organizations that adhere to KYC requirements... you will still be able to use other non-custodial wallets. (Paper Wallets for Cold storage and desktop wallets)  

Bitcoin started out in an era where there was a lot of uncertainty over it's legality in the early days, so the focus was a lot on anonymity ..but things have changed over the years, because Bitcoin has gone mainstream and the regulators have caught up and defined it within the financial world.

The thing that triggered this latest "clamp down" was the Russian sanctions and some people using Crypto currencies to bypass the sanctions. (It is all about control)  

We don't have to tell them anything. At all.
As @pooya87 said, everybody will just switch to the decentralized platforms. We can (and should!) use hardware wallets without their crappy wallet platforms and go on.

The only problem I see is that this will slow down the interconnection between Bitcoin and the financial world.


So it clearly looks bad, but I have high hopes there will be plenty of ways to avoid EU crap when we want to and this may actually make people start using Bitcoin.. more properly.

I see that you look at it darkly, but whatever is happening I can consider it good.
We cannot read this vote in isolation from what is happening in Ukraine, and therefore governments are trying to anticipate any news indicating the possibility of transferring Bitcoin to and from Russia.


So new users will be afraid of freezing because they usually use centralized platforms.

 - As for the decentralized platforms, decentralized services, wallets and others will not be affected.
 - Centralized platforms will be severely affected, so our role is to support decentralized platforms.
 - Currencies with low market capacities, altcoins, DeFi, NFTs and others will have the greatest impact because most of the services/wallets are centralized.