Topic: Member Of The E.U. Parliament Says Crypto Transactions Shouldn’t Be Anonymous - page 2. (Read 266 times)

They keep lowering down the numbers and it is starting to get annoying and frustrating.  Anti Money Laundering limits on bank accounts, threshold for anonymous precious metal orders, the US looking to investigate all transactions over $400, trying to make Cryptocurrency transactions over €1,000 non anonymous.  They are full on against us and our rights which only makes me want to love Bitcoin more.

These are not sums they would need to investigate for Money Laundering, Terrorism Funding and whatnot.  The real sums going through these crimes are impressively massive but they get a pass.  Who does not get a pass is us, the peasants they do not want or need to be rich or free.  After €1,000 Cryptocurrency treshold for reporting they will start asking for reports of transactions over €500.  Then for all of them.  Does anyone ever notice how sly they are in doing this?

Was it Germany that kept decreasing the threshold for anonymous precious metal purchases all the way down to €1,000 or €2,000 and after cumulative purchases worth €10,000 you get reported to the Anti Money Laundering guys?  The bad guys move millions and billions but are never caught.  You move $1,000?  You have to be monitored and controlled.

They seem to try generalizing and normalizing the idea that you are suspect of crime for sending $100 to your family or paying $1,000 on a peaceful vacation.  No thank you, I rather have a free life.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

OP, I'm about to ask you more than once why you copy forum posts from your site, and post a link to them, at a time when the original information was taken by you from other sources?
In this way, you promote your site, which has nothing original, by regularly providing news, copying from the Internet.
It's not exactly the right business.

Bitcoin and Crypto currencies are an alternative to Cash ..... so is Paul Tang saying that all cash transactions should also not be anonymous? The pseudo anonymity are not designed to protect the criminals.. it was designed to protect the user of the technology.

Just imagine a scenario where every owner of a wallet (Bitcoin address) was public... Criminals would have had access to all the names of the wealthy Bitcoin whales and owners of a lot of coins. (Your neighbor will know all your spending habits and how many coins you have)

Nobody would be using the technology if ownership of all coins was public knowledge.... and once it is centralized, people lose control over their ownership of their tokens. (Exchanges have control over your Private keys) 

just like your members of parliament as usual,, they just want to control other people like the world is theirs ... the choice to transact with crypto is the right of people because they want security and anonymity, is it wrong when people choose to transact using crypto to protect their privacy? now is a free era, where people are free to choose what they will do with their assets and the government has no right to intervene in that

Would he also say that?

It doesn't say so.



There is a difference between doing your KYC on the exchange once vs having to write the name and/or physical address of the person you are sending your crypto to.

Is there a possibility for what he is asking for to happen? He is visibly asking for regulation and I don't know how he intend to achieve this except he will legislate that exchange around his country or operating with his country people begin to register with KYC with the exchange. If he wants to monitor the transactions made, he would better read bitcoin white paper and understand the working.

This is already happening to some extent. But for some p2p services and if you are using a trusted platform, there's no need of full KYC. There are some instances that you do need to disclose your identity especially if you are using a legal 3rd party service provider that are operating under their government's jurisdiction. And most centralized exchanges are now also asking for compulsory KYC, so this is not new anymore. Though there are still services that we can pay anonymously but the number of merchants requiring KYC for crypto services are now growing.

There now coming in very fast pace news about intentions & will to tighten "crypto rules". As i've stated on various posts, it's going to be a nightmare from the privacy point of view. It's going to kill innovation or at least set so high barrier of entry that bootstrapping teens can't anymore launch projects which disturbs technology. That's bad in general, and the crypto community should try to push some really decentralized solutions that simply can not controlled. The orginal idea how to get Bitcoins, i.e. mining, is nice... it wasn't nice years later to get bank account closed because of transfering money to some crypto exchange and so on. So, there's coming a lot more not nice things with increasing regulation.

It is pretty logical if he is talking regarding businesses accepting crypto as payment. For some people it is pretty naïve to believe that companies start accepting thousand $ worth of crypto. It doesn't work like this with fiat and there is absolutely no reason to change it for crypto. Seriously, try to take lots of cash and try ty make an expensive purchase somewhere in US or EU. Lovely visit to the police is guaranteed.

This guy is talking about KYC for crypto services which we already have and €1,000 threshold for it which is a fairy high number ( at least better than complete KYC for all crypto transactions).

If they would require information just like the bank transfers then what would be the difference between transferring cryptocurrencies and transferring the money through banks since information would eventually need:

1. Third parties
2. Documentation
3. Government involvement to get the information straight

This would convert it into nothing but fiat now, this is something that we cannot just shoot aside. You can already see that we do need KYC everywhere which is already jumping on the government involvement as well. They just might to try and dominate the market one way or the other which I do think is not something any crypto user would want.

Paul Tang, a member of the E.U. Parliament, believes that transferring cryptocurrencies should require information about the sender and the receiver, just like bank transfers.

Paul Tang, a member of the E.U. Parliament, believes that transferring cryptocurrencies should require information about the sender and the receiver, just like bank transfers.

Tang, who heads the E.U. Parliament’s Subcommittee on Tax Matters, called the pushback against the upcoming crypto AML regulation “another social media storm by crypto bros.”

The crypto industry in Europe is set to fight yet another battle in its war against stifling regulation. This time, the fight is aimed against the European Commission and its latest proposal to extend AML requirements for cryptocurrency wallets.

The revision of the Transfer of Funds Regulation (TFR), first proposed in July 2021, will extend the obligation of financial institutions in the E.U. to accompany transfers of funds with information about who is sending and who is receiving the transaction. The proposal itself represents the practical implementation of the existing FATF travel rule that requires crypto service providers to KYC their customers and is set to be amended in a vote on Thursday, March 31st.

As the bill provides no guidance as to how a crypto service should verify unhosted wallets, this will mean that many will decide to forego transacting with them altogether. Those that continue transacting with unhosted wallets will be required to report all transactions over €1,000.

This caused a stir in the crypto community, with many calling this a blatant violation of privacy. Those backing the bill, however, seem undeterred by this.

Paul Tang, a member of the E.U. Parliament serving as the chair of its Subcommittee on Tax Matters, called the public outcry “another social media storm by crypto bros.”

“Just like bank transfers, transferring crypto like Bitcoin should be accompanied with information about the person sending and receiving the funds,” he wrote on Twitter earlier today.

Tang compared holding cryptocurrencies to holding cash, saying they’re both stored without the involvement and knowledge of anyone else—including the government. But, unlike cash, cryptocurrencies are extremely mobile and operate in a borderless world, which increases the likelihood they’ll end up “in the wrong place,” he explained.

“So the identity of unhosted wallet-holders needs identification—just like you need to identify yourself when you deposit money at the bank. And we want authorities to be notified in case any one person receives a total of €1,000 from unhosted wallets. That is a red flag.”

He said that the threshold of €1,000 in total is an attempt to disable “smurfing” when tracking crypto transactions. Smurfing refers to the act of sending transfers smaller than the limit required by AML regulation, which usually stands at around $10,000. The varying price of cryptocurrencies means that thresholds like these are hard to enforce, which is why the E.U. believes it would be more productive to cover basically all crypto transfers.

Tang says that despite what members of the crypto industry say, these are important tools to fight money laundering and terrorist financing.


However, the future of the crypto industry in the E.U. might not become as bleak as Tang wants it to. Previous attempts to introduce regulation as stifling as this one was rejected by the E.U. parliament and there’s a high likelihood we could see this happening again.

Source: https://www.coinshots.com/news/member-of-the-e-u-parliament-says-crypto-transactions-shouldnt-be-anonymous