On the bright side, FinCEN reopened the public comment period for these proposed changes, amidst backlash from Bitcoin companies complaining of insufficient time given. They are giving another 15 days for the reporting rule changes, and 45 days for the self-hosted wallet regulation. They don't give specific dates, so I don't know if that means from the date of this publication, or the date of the previous deadline.
Either way, I would expect to get some closure on the Travel Rule regulations around the end of January and the self-hosted wallet regulations around end of February, assuming the Biden and Trump administrations see eye to eye on the proposed changes.
Topic: Mr. Mnuchin plans to regulate non-custodial wallets. (Read 906 times)
Stopping any sort of ML, crime, missed KYC duties
^^ Yeah, the travel rule is also what I wanted to see $250 threshold? prfft!!
I think it surely does have some effect, those 8 are powerful congressman to begin with, so it might influence and as you have said, the new administration will take over that time so we might see some changes and hopefully it will be on our side.
I think it surely does have some effect, those 8 are powerful congressman to begin with, so it might influence and as you have said, the new administration will take over that time so we might see some changes and hopefully it will be on our side.
Just some update:
US representatives ask Mnuchin to extend comment period for proposed wallet rule to traditional 60 days.
Are they just extending the inevitable here? Or are we going to find middle grounds?
US representatives ask Mnuchin to extend comment period for proposed wallet rule to traditional 60 days.
Quote
Now, Reps. Tom Emmer, David Schweikert, Warren Davidson, Ted Budd, Bill Foster, Darren Soto, Susan DelBene and Tulsi Gabbard have signed a letter to Mnuchin, with FinCEN Director Kenneth Blanco cc'ed, asking the office to extend the period to 60 days. If the rule is implemented, the letter also asks FinCEN to consider a six month extension of implementation to allow stakeholders to find solutions to the upcoming rule.
Are they just extending the inevitable here? Or are we going to find middle grounds?
60 days + 6 months would be a godsend---too good to be true. if that happened, it would probably kill the proposal since biden is gonna appoint a new treasury secretary, who will likely appoint a new FINCEN director.
i don't have high hopes that 8 house reps will turn the tide. i really hope i'm wrong, but i get the feeling the treasury department is gonna cram these regs through before trump leaves office. they don't explicitly say in the proposal when the new rules would go into effect but this makes me think it could be immediately:
Quote
FinCEN has determined that the substantial concerns about national security, terrorism, ransomware, money laundering, and other illicit financial activities discussed above, and the need for an effective response in a rapidly changing area of major national concern, support making the amendments in the proposed rule effective as quickly as is feasible.
https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-28437.pdf
https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-28437.pdf
the other thing i'm waiting with bated breath for: implementation of the travel rule, with a possible $250 threshold instead of the FATF's recommended $1000.
Just some update:
US representatives ask Mnuchin to extend comment period for proposed wallet rule to traditional 60 days.
Are they just extending the inevitable here? Or are we going to find middle grounds?
US representatives ask Mnuchin to extend comment period for proposed wallet rule to traditional 60 days.
Quote
Eight members of Congress have sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin expressing concern over the shortened comment period for the Treasury's recently proposed rule for virtual currency transactions.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would require more stringent know-your-customer and reporting measures for exchanges, cracking down on anonymous transacting and self-hosted wallet activity. In its notice, it provided for a 15 day comment period as opposed to the traditional 60 days for significant proposed rules.
Now, Reps. Tom Emmer, David Schweikert, Warren Davidson, Ted Budd, Bill Foster, Darren Soto, Susan DelBene and Tulsi Gabbard have signed a letter to Mnuchin, with FinCEN Director Kenneth Blanco cc'ed, asking the office to extend the period to 60 days. If the rule is implemented, the letter also asks FinCEN to consider a six month extension of implementation to allow stakeholders to find solutions to the upcoming rule.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would require more stringent know-your-customer and reporting measures for exchanges, cracking down on anonymous transacting and self-hosted wallet activity. In its notice, it provided for a 15 day comment period as opposed to the traditional 60 days for significant proposed rules.
Now, Reps. Tom Emmer, David Schweikert, Warren Davidson, Ted Budd, Bill Foster, Darren Soto, Susan DelBene and Tulsi Gabbard have signed a letter to Mnuchin, with FinCEN Director Kenneth Blanco cc'ed, asking the office to extend the period to 60 days. If the rule is implemented, the letter also asks FinCEN to consider a six month extension of implementation to allow stakeholders to find solutions to the upcoming rule.
Are they just extending the inevitable here? Or are we going to find middle grounds?
There are two distinct but related proposals in play. One regards the "self-hosted wallet" rule change discussed in this thread, which would require money services businesses to collect KYC information for transactions of $3,000 or more to a non-custodial wallet.
The second was actually published in late October, and is intended to implement the FATF Travel Rule. The rule requires KYC collection on cross-border transactions with a de minimis threshold of no higher than 1,000 USD or EUR.
The Fed and FinCEN are taking a ridiculously hard line by lowering that threshold to $250:
Of course, the "self-hosted wallet" rule change would apply to these transactions as well.
From what I can tell these are both just proposals, but that may be a formality. I expected FinCEN to pass new regulations complying with the Travel Rule a while ago. I would be surprised if they proposed this rule change right before Trump exits only to forget about it.
The second was actually published in late October, and is intended to implement the FATF Travel Rule. The rule requires KYC collection on cross-border transactions with a de minimis threshold of no higher than 1,000 USD or EUR.
The Fed and FinCEN are taking a ridiculously hard line by lowering that threshold to $250:
Quote
The existing requirements in 31 CFR 1020.410(a) and 31 CFR 1010.410(e) and (f) to collect, retain, and transmit information on funds transfers and transmittals of funds currently apply only to funds transfers and transmittals of funds in amounts of $3,000 or more. The Agencies are proposing to lower the threshold under the Recordkeeping Rule, and FinCEN is proposing to lower the threshold under the Travel Rule, to $250 for funds transfers and transmittals of funds that begin or end outside the United States.
Of course, the "self-hosted wallet" rule change would apply to these transactions as well.
From what I can tell these are both just proposals, but that may be a formality. I expected FinCEN to pass new regulations complying with the Travel Rule a while ago. I would be surprised if they proposed this rule change right before Trump exits only to forget about it.
$3k ain't that bad.
That's how it starts. First $10k fifty years ago, now $3k, a lot less when accounting for inflation.
$250 scares the shit outta me.
And that's how it ends.
I've had a number of payments via PP in the past of comparably low size (from USA, of course) that were sent to me reversed for AML reasons. (the person I was dealing with at the time was for some reason unable to make an international bank transfer, fortunately Bitcoin came in to save the day, that might become impossible in the future for ordinary people.)
can anyone clarify---is the reporting threshold in the proposed law $3000 per day, as stated here? because i also see mention of this in FINCEN's original notice:
the coindesk article does go onto say, "[The controversial rule] originally was thought to be far more stringent than the final version published last week."
but i can't help but wonder if there is an important distinction being missed here. wtf is this about "international transactions"?
$3k ain't that bad. $250 scares the shit outta me.
Quote
the proposed decrease in the applicable threshold for international transactions from $3,000 to $250
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28437/requirements-for-certain-transactions-involving-convertible-virtual-currency-or-digital-assets
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28437/requirements-for-certain-transactions-involving-convertible-virtual-currency-or-digital-assets
the coindesk article does go onto say, "[The controversial rule] originally was thought to be far more stringent than the final version published last week."
but i can't help but wonder if there is an important distinction being missed here. wtf is this about "international transactions"?
$3k ain't that bad. $250 scares the shit outta me.
Will this become a reality? And if something happens then, an end to confidentiality? "Last week we heard rumors that the U.S. Treasury and Secretary Mnuchin were planning to rush out some new regulation regarding self-hosted crypto wallets before the end of his term."
Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
I also began to see information that cryptocurrency regulation awaits us, which means governments want access to information about the owners of cryptocurrencies. Unfortunately, all this goes exactly to this and sooner or later we will have to face the system and find a compromise. As for whether the crypto community can do something, I doubt that the crypto community has leverage over this situation. The latest high-profile events show that the authorities have taken seriously the crypto sphere and, gradually studying it, are making their own adjustments.
Will this become a reality? And if something happens then, an end to confidentiality? "Last week we heard rumors that the U.S. Treasury and Secretary Mnuchin were planning to rush out some new regulation regarding self-hosted crypto wallets before the end of his term."
Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
i am not afraid of that announcement , there are people with enormeous amounts of bitcoin in wallets that are made long ago , mostly impossible to get a map or something to follow each wallet to their owner.Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
but indeed , it is getting harder for new bitcoiners to stay anonimous
Is it really impossible to buy bitcoins or other cryptocurrencies for cash in Europe or the USA?
It's not illegal in Russia or Kazakhstan now, but I don't know how it happens in other countries.
Will this become a reality? And if something happens then, an end to confidentiality? "Last week we heard rumors that the U.S. Treasury and Secretary Mnuchin were planning to rush out some new regulation regarding self-hosted crypto wallets before the end of his term."
Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
i am not afraid of that announcement , there are people with enormeous amounts of bitcoin in wallets that are made long ago , mostly impossible to get a map or something to follow each wallet to their owner.Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
but indeed , it is getting harder for new bitcoiners to stay anonimous
How Upcoming Crypto Wallet Restrictions Will Affect You
https://decrypt.co/51917/how-upcoming-crypto-wallet-restrictions-will-affect-you
"The US Treasury is expected to impose transaction reporting restrictions on self-hosted crypto wallets soon."
If the same regulation is introduced in the United States, then most crypto companies will leave this country.
https://decrypt.co/51917/how-upcoming-crypto-wallet-restrictions-will-affect-you
"The US Treasury is expected to impose transaction reporting restrictions on self-hosted crypto wallets soon."
If the same regulation is introduced in the United States, then most crypto companies will leave this country.
I'm not positive about these restrictions, but I understand that the mass adoption isn't possible without the strict regulations.
Don't bother yourself, such "strict regulations" are round the corner. "G7 Finance Ministers Support Regulating Cryptocurrencies" This poses a risk that all in all expected mass adoption of cryptocurrency will never come. The thing is aggrevated by the central banks plans to release centralized digital currencies in the nearest future.
cover up their asses without doing anything.
We might saw some form of adoption but this regulation or possible plans would really be a big hindrance or a wall that will partially block on what we do aim for.
So expect that there might be some implementation of these things in near future.
Too much hassle to fulfill what they want, imagine people always have to ask for documents to verify the recipient.
(Finally, many recipients (in the U.S. or abroad) who value their financial privacy, may simply not want to upload more identifying documents to various companies,
which could be hacked or stolen.)
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1331745443399647233
Hopefully, it's just a plan without realization, so many aspects to be considered and overcome to make this regulation functioning properly.
(Finally, many recipients (in the U.S. or abroad) who value their financial privacy, may simply not want to upload more identifying documents to various companies,
which could be hacked or stolen.)
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1331745443399647233
Hopefully, it's just a plan without realization, so many aspects to be considered and overcome to make this regulation functioning properly.
It is already happening everywhere. Any exchange that doesn't do KYC, does KYC after a while when you want to withdraw your funds no matter how big or small they are. I know from my experience with binance. They don't care. They want your passport scan.
This doesn't make it any better for anyone though, be it crypto or non-crypto people. Through little steps, they've reached the point where outlawing non-verified addresses becomes a legit contemplation of politicians. If we keep going the "we're being tracked anyway" route, things will get very bad in a matter of years.
If they want to find out who I am as a customer and where my money comes from, let them do it. Maybe there are some criminals among the customers of a shop. But it's a very, very bad idea to monitor everyone. This is exactly as if we're all potential criminals from point zero.
Let's take fiat as an example; I think it is already enough that we're giving away our data to so many stores for online orders we make. I would not want to register the USD banknotes I own to my ID to legally use them. It's creepy. Imagine the government knew where every single bill from every single US citizen's wallet goes. You may argue that is exactly the case of debit cards - yeah, except they're still a personal option, not mandatory.
If they want to find out who I am as a customer and where my money comes from, let them do it. Maybe there are some criminals among the customers of a shop. But it's a very, very bad idea to monitor everyone. This is exactly as if we're all potential criminals from point zero.
Let's take fiat as an example; I think it is already enough that we're giving away our data to so many stores for online orders we make. I would not want to register the USD banknotes I own to my ID to legally use them. It's creepy. Imagine the government knew where every single bill from every single US citizen's wallet goes. You may argue that is exactly the case of debit cards - yeah, except they're still a personal option, not mandatory.
I am not saying we have to obey just because we are already being tracked.
I am saying that it won't be easy to earn your freedom without putting up a fight.
That's not how it works.
Nobody will give you your freedom if you are not willing to take it yourself.
In the end they will turn crypto into more of the same thing, but better. Digital FIAT without any physical bank notes. Any government's wet dream.
For crypto users maybe. The others that don't use crypto are already being tracked anyway.
Even if you don't comply and don't report your holdings, those merchants and others businesses will report theirs and will do KYC on you when the government asks them.
Which basically means you won't be able to buy anything online unless you comply.
This doesn't make it any better for anyone though, be it crypto or non-crypto people. Through little steps, they've reached the point where outlawing non-verified addresses becomes a legit contemplation of politicians. If we keep going the "we're being tracked anyway" route, things will get very bad in a matter of years.Even if you don't comply and don't report your holdings, those merchants and others businesses will report theirs and will do KYC on you when the government asks them.
Which basically means you won't be able to buy anything online unless you comply.
If they want to find out who I am as a customer and where my money comes from, let them do it. Maybe there are some criminals among the customers of a shop. But it's a very, very bad idea to monitor everyone. This is exactly as if we're all potential criminals from point zero.
Let's take fiat as an example; I think it is already enough that we're giving away our data to so many stores for online orders we make. I would not want to register the USD banknotes I own to my ID to legally use them. It's creepy. Imagine the government knew where every single bill from every single US citizen's wallet goes. You may argue that is exactly the case of debit cards - yeah, except they're still a personal option, not mandatory.
Oh, well, if Mnuchin's plan succeeds, things would get only worse than they've ever been.
For crypto users maybe. The others that don't use crypto are already being tracked anyway.
Even if you don't comply and don't report your holdings, those merchants and others businesses will report theirs and will do KYC on you when the government asks them.
Which basically means you won't be able to buy anything online unless you comply.
Too much hassle to fulfill what they want, imagine people always have to ask for documents to verify the recipient.
(Finally, many recipients (in the U.S. or abroad) who value their financial privacy, may simply not want to upload more identifying documents to various companies,
which could be hacked or stolen.)
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1331745443399647233
Hopefully, it's just a plan without realization, so many aspects to be considered and overcome to make this regulation functioning properly.
Oh, well, if Mnuchin's plan succeeds, things would get only worse than they've ever been.
For crypto users maybe. The others that don't use crypto are already being tracked anyway.
Even if you don't comply and don't report your holdings, those merchants and others businesses will report theirs and will do KYC on you when the government asks them.
Which basically means you won't be able to buy anything online unless you comply.
Will the current regulations now get anything worst? Because IMO custodial wallets in the US are heavily regulated. Coinbase and other custodial wallets have been handing out "random" reports for the IRS, they have also helped to track the Twitter hack that had happened easily, they have also freeze several accounts already when it comes to illicit activities. So really what more regulations they can do for the people to experience when they already have a lot of control with custodial wallets? Are they thinking about some kind of license for us to be able to use custodial wallets or something?
Oh, well, if Mnuchin's plan succeeds, things would get only worse than they've ever been. Their plan is to basically outlaw any address that is not verified with your identity. As in, you would only be able to use your address in the USA if you officially and legally register it to your personally identifiable information. Any address that is not registered to an ID would be outlawed.
Will the current regulations now get anything worst? Because IMO custodial wallets in the US are heavily regulated. Coinbase and other custodial wallets have been handing out "random" reports for the IRS, they have also helped to track the Twitter hack that had happened easily, they have also freeze several accounts already when it comes to illicit activities. So really what more regulations they can do for the people to experience when they already have a lot of control with custodial wallets? Are they thinking about some kind of license for us to be able to use custodial wallets or something?
Everyday that I try and learn about sane financial law and policy it gets even muddier. It is so obvious that regulators serve their self interest at the expense of the citizenry and the people just concede because its such dense nonsense and regulatory by law. Their rules are simple, keep a hold of financial industries, and tax people the maximum amount. Period. Which is why bitcoin exists in the first place. to wrestle financial control away from these absolute monsters.
I'm not positive about these restrictions, but I understand that the mass adoption isn't possible without the strict regulations.
and they're still just rumors at this point.
Nevertheless everyone should be prepared. I have already deleted all wallets from my mobiles. I think this is the weakest point in the stronghold which I have started to build as the eavesdropping software installed on the cell operators end is likely capable to identify the presence of crypto wallets on my end.how about encrypting your traffic as an alternative? or are you paranoid about VPN operators too?
i get where you're coming from though. i already avoid mobile wallets because i fly a lot. when i use them, it's just as a throwaway. in fact, i'm trying to get in the habit of only traveling with factory reset devices. they don't need probable cause to search you, and i'd rather not have customs wondering how many figures are in my bitcoin wallet...
This forum, in general, is a gathering of paranoid people including myself. Sure traffic from all my devices including mobiles is encrypted but as they say "better safe than sorry". The fewer devices that can potentially be identified the better. Or you think opposite?
If you are talking about protecting transmitted information through the use of VPN, this is good, but if we talk about privacy, then your operator sees at what time you transmitted encrypted information and from what place. And knowing this data, you can find out which VPN service you used and get the necessary data.
Sorry, but you move into realm of phantasy. I don't think there is someone in the world at this moment who could extract any piece of info from stream of bytes which is AES256 protected and tangled by XOR with salt as well . Time stamping gives no clue what is behind such stream. VPN provider will not help with this as he also doesn't know what I'm transmitting.
The VPN protocol is secure, but are you sure your encryption keys are safe if you use Apple or Android software?
I just wanted to say that your mobile phone is not your assistant, but your enemy.
and they're still just rumors at this point.
Nevertheless everyone should be prepared. I have already deleted all wallets from my mobiles. I think this is the weakest point in the stronghold which I have started to build as the eavesdropping software installed on the cell operators end is likely capable to identify the presence of crypto wallets on my end.how about encrypting your traffic as an alternative? or are you paranoid about VPN operators too?
i get where you're coming from though. i already avoid mobile wallets because i fly a lot. when i use them, it's just as a throwaway. in fact, i'm trying to get in the habit of only traveling with factory reset devices. they don't need probable cause to search you, and i'd rather not have customs wondering how many figures are in my bitcoin wallet...
This forum, in general, is a gathering of paranoid people including myself. Sure traffic from all my devices including mobiles is encrypted but as they say "better safe than sorry". The fewer devices that can potentially be identified the better. Or you think opposite?
If you are talking about protecting transmitted information through the use of VPN, this is good, but if we talk about privacy, then your operator sees at what time you transmitted encrypted information and from what place. And knowing this data, you can find out which VPN service you used and get the necessary data.
This forum, in general, is a gathering of paranoid people including myself. Sure traffic from all my devices including mobiles is encrypted but as they say "better safe than sorry". The fewer devices that can potentially be identified the better. Or you think opposite?
how about encrypting your traffic as an alternative? or are you paranoid about VPN operators too?
This forum, in general, is a gathering of paranoid people including myself. Sure traffic from all my devices including mobiles is encrypted but as they say "better safe than sorry". The fewer devices that can potentially be identified the better. Or you think opposite?
Friendly reminder that e.g. Apple is bypassing VPNs to verify the authenticity of the applications you are running on your -- or rather, their -- machines.
It's a security feature tho so nothing to worry about ;p
and they're still just rumors at this point.
Nevertheless everyone should be prepared. I have already deleted all wallets from my mobiles. I think this is the weakest point in the stronghold which I have started to build as the eavesdropping software installed on the cell operators end is likely capable to identify the presence of crypto wallets on my end.how about encrypting your traffic as an alternative? or are you paranoid about VPN operators too?
i get where you're coming from though. i already avoid mobile wallets because i fly a lot. when i use them, it's just as a throwaway. in fact, i'm trying to get in the habit of only traveling with factory reset devices. they don't need probable cause to search you, and i'd rather not have customs wondering how many figures are in my bitcoin wallet...
I do not really understand the meaning of this bill.
it's not a bill. it's not legislation being passed by congress. these would be unilateral regulations issued by trump's treasury department, and they're still just rumors at this point.
Let's say I withdraw bitcoins from the exchange address to another address (I can declare that this is my address, that is, I move the cryptocurrency between my wallets).
Legal requirements have been met.
Well, then I can dispose of my funds as I want. I am not obliged to set the owner of the wallet to whom I will send my funds?
Legal requirements have been met.
Well, then I can dispose of my funds as I want. I am not obliged to set the owner of the wallet to whom I will send my funds?
from the sound of things, that's as far as these regulations will go, yes.
that's just the centralized exchange angle though. this could affect other use cases like buying goods with bitcoin through a 3rd party like bitpay, or defi contracts supported by centralized parties, etc. it's possible that KYC requirements may become attached to things like that.
I do not really understand the meaning of this bill.
Let's say I withdraw bitcoins from the exchange address to another address (I can declare that this is my address, that is, I move the cryptocurrency between my wallets).
Legal requirements have been met.
Well, then I can dispose of my funds as I want. I am not obliged to set the owner of the wallet to whom I will send my funds?
Let's say I withdraw bitcoins from the exchange address to another address (I can declare that this is my address, that is, I move the cryptocurrency between my wallets).
Legal requirements have been met.
Well, then I can dispose of my funds as I want. I am not obliged to set the owner of the wallet to whom I will send my funds?
Last I pulled cash out from atm I used a bank card.
I was forced to prove a lot of kyc to get the bank card.
I was forced to prove a lot of kyc to get the bank card.
Yup. But it's just the same for an exchange. You're already KYC'd when you withdraw from it. An extra step like this adds a needless dollop of onerousness. They like those.
May be revoked if put in.
Tax reporting is fucking nuts enough for crypto coins.
Last I pulled cash out from atm I used a bank card.
I was forced to prove a lot of kyc to get the bank card.
I was forced to prove a lot of kyc to get the bank card.
Yup. But it's just the same for an exchange. You're already KYC'd when you withdraw from it. An extra step like this adds a needless dollop of onerousness. They like those.
https://twitter.com/CoinCornerDanny/status/1332307237608501249
Here's an interesting thread about someone who had a similar possibility from the Isle of Man's regulator. He makes the point that when you withdraw cash from an ATM you're not forced to prove anything.
Obviously the US government is a mindless monolith that doesn't give a shit about anything so it may well happen anyway. This guy picked it apart successfully for his jurisdiction but it's a teensy and agile one.
Here's an interesting thread about someone who had a similar possibility from the Isle of Man's regulator. He makes the point that when you withdraw cash from an ATM you're not forced to prove anything.
Obviously the US government is a mindless monolith that doesn't give a shit about anything so it may well happen anyway. This guy picked it apart successfully for his jurisdiction but it's a teensy and agile one.
Last I pulled cash out from atm I used a bank card.
I was forced to prove a lot of kyc to get the bank card.
And when I actually used it in the atm I was forced to enter the correct pin.
KYC is coming like it or not.
https://twitter.com/CoinCornerDanny/status/1332307237608501249
Here's an interesting thread about someone who had a similar possibility from the Isle of Man's regulator. He makes the point that when you withdraw cash from an ATM you're not forced to prove anything.
Obviously the US government is a mindless monolith that doesn't give a shit about anything so it may well happen anyway. This guy picked it apart successfully for his jurisdiction but it's a teensy and agile one.
Here's an interesting thread about someone who had a similar possibility from the Isle of Man's regulator. He makes the point that when you withdraw cash from an ATM you're not forced to prove anything.
Obviously the US government is a mindless monolith that doesn't give a shit about anything so it may well happen anyway. This guy picked it apart successfully for his jurisdiction but it's a teensy and agile one.
It's kinda scary in a sense that they are getting even more aggressive on these regulations by the day, thinking that even personal wallets need to be disclosed in order for them to monitor activities of people. Combatting money laundering and other illegal activities through the use of cryptocurrencies is not enough justification for this regulation should it ever come into realization. It's just invasive on the privacy of individual investors not wanting to deal with the stress of filing and whatnot. But then again, all of these is inevitable as bitcoin continues to grow bigger and bigger each day.
Avoiding centralized exchanges does help if the regulation only affects exchanges, rather than private citizens, which seems to be the case:
"centralized exchanges " are likely to be included but that regulation, if it comes to action, will focus on self-hosted (non-custodial) wallets and that was the point of OP. As to CEX I completely agree, anyone should avoid, if possible to use them or use those that don't require KYC. I'm trading and withdrawing on CEX with no KYC
To me it seems like they are going to regulate non-custodial wallets via exchanges only though, not by means of requiring everyone who downloads a Bitcoin wallet to register with government officials. At least that's what the rest of the Twitter thread seems to imply, but granted, it's not fully clear at this point. It would be bad news either way though.
Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
There is arguably only one possible countermeasure that can be undertaken by true bitcoiners: stop using centralized exchanges for buying/selling bitcoin and start engaging in the bitcoin circular economy. The former will definitely help you in achieving the latter because in order to acquire/spend your bitcoin, you would require to interact with other "non-compliant" bitcoiners. Some still fail to grasp, that being a bitcoiner means being a rebel.Probably you missed the point of OP. According to Mr.Mnuchin's plot every one who posses any kind of non-custodial wallets like desktop, mobile, cold, paper, HW wallets will be obligated to report about this to officials and identify himself. "stop using centralized exchanges " will not help in this case.
Avoiding centralized exchanges does help if the regulation only affects exchanges, rather than private citizens, which seems to be the case:
Quote from: @brian_armstrong
This proposed regulation would, we think, require financial institutions like Coinbase to verify the recipient/owner of the self-hosted wallet, collecting identifying information on that party, before a withdrawal could be sent to that self-hosted wallet.
So it seems like they want to tighten down KYC/AML requirements so that exchanges are legally obliged to withhold not only fiat, but also crypto funds. Some exchanges already have been preemptively doing this, but governmental regulation of these requirements looks like very bad news.
The water is slowly boiling and everyone going through centralized exchanges is sitting in the pot.
This is rather chilling news. I hope Coinbase and other lobbyists have some success in deterring the Treasury Department.
Now we have some context for this rather thoughtful piece published by CoinCenter last week: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Unhosted Wallets
Indeed, that's one of the first things that comes to mind, although I see that as more of an eventuality. If you look closely at what Brian Armstrong is saying, the rumored regulations seem to focus on VASPs and a potential requirement to verify the owner of an address before fulfilling withdrawal or other requests. It's an expansion of KYC into KYCC -- "Know your customer's customer."
That's still far removed from forcing Bitcoin holders to disclose their holdings and public addresses. You're right however, that this is the direction things are likely headed in the future.
Now we have some context for this rather thoughtful piece published by CoinCenter last week: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Unhosted Wallets
This is only one step before the 6012.
Indeed, that's one of the first things that comes to mind, although I see that as more of an eventuality. If you look closely at what Brian Armstrong is saying, the rumored regulations seem to focus on VASPs and a potential requirement to verify the owner of an address before fulfilling withdrawal or other requests. It's an expansion of KYC into KYCC -- "Know your customer's customer."
That's still far removed from forcing Bitcoin holders to disclose their holdings and public addresses. You're right however, that this is the direction things are likely headed in the future.
This is only one step before the 6012.
If you declare your holdings, they will be able to take them away whenever they like.
If you don't, you'll be an outlaw.
If you declare your holdings, they will be able to take them away whenever they like.
If you don't, you'll be an outlaw.
Will this become a reality? And if something happens then, an end to confidentiality? "Last week we heard rumors that the U.S. Treasury and Secretary Mnuchin were planning to rush out some new regulation regarding self-hosted crypto wallets before the end of his term."
Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
Decentralized Tokenized BTC
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5288914
Decentralized bitcoin trading
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5290331
&
Decentralized trading protocol Uniswap
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/uniswap-discussion-5268409
This is just the beginning
Many other cross-chain solutions are coming soon in the Polkadot ecosystem. If UK citizen creates paper wallets ( the kind of non-custodial wallets) and replenish those wallets with bitcoins to hand them over to heirs should or must he/she to report this to officials? In fact Mr. Mnuchin would like to make it a law for U.S. citizens but I would be reluctant to do this if such a law was in my country.
Nope. But you'd better live seven years after handing them over if it's a sufficiently large amount or it's inheritance taxable just like anything else of value would be.
Honestly, if the legislation will be enforced in our country as well I don't have any idea on how to deal with that not to countermeasure it. Since anonymity and personal information will be at stake in this plan I should be keen on this regulation and how other Bitcoin holders will respond and react to this.
I tend to agree, it could be the immediate response that will countermeasure this and on my end, I might also do the same thing in the meantime when the US government starts to implement their plan to retain my anonymity and secure my finances.
Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
There is arguably only one possible countermeasure that can be undertaken by true bitcoiners: stop using centralized exchanges for buying/selling bitcoin and start engaging in the bitcoin circular economy. The former will definitely help you in achieving the latter because in order to acquire/spend your bitcoin, you would require to interact with other "non-compliant" bitcoiners. Some still fail to grasp, that being a bitcoiner means being a rebel.Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
There is arguably only one possible countermeasure that can be undertaken by true bitcoiners: stop using centralized exchanges for buying/selling bitcoin and start engaging in the bitcoin circular economy. The former will definitely help you in achieving the latter because in order to acquire/spend your bitcoin, you would require to interact with other "non-compliant" bitcoiners. Some still fail to grasp, that being a bitcoiner means being a rebel.
Well, if the law passes the govt will need to conduct identity verification on every user that downloads a crypto wallet. This will potentially put the financial privacy of many investors at risk. Could this be the reason why Bitcoin has hit an intraday low of $17,150?
If it comes to pass it'll be the US throwing away any lead they may have. As Our Brian points out there are many scenarios where it's simply not possible to do what they're proposing. Americans are already more trouble than they're worth for companies outside. Looks like they're keen to amp that up.
It's not as if everyone is being forced to wear a Bitcoin star of David but it would be nice if they thought these things through properly.
It's not as if everyone is being forced to wear a Bitcoin star of David but it would be nice if they thought these things through properly.
(accidentally hit the wrong thread).
From the thread he goes on to explain it light just be for exchanges that need to verify who sends and receives funds.
If that happens, I don't see much of a problem. Because you already kinda verified the address was yours in the T&Cs anyway so this is just a further enforcement of that
The UK has some regulation from 2021 that anyone acting as an exchange (p2p or otherwise) might need to register with them to continue trading - which i imagine might be a way to get.AA better grip on who's exchanging and what...
From the thread he goes on to explain it light just be for exchanges that need to verify who sends and receives funds.
If that happens, I don't see much of a problem. Because you already kinda verified the address was yours in the T&Cs anyway so this is just a further enforcement of that
The UK has some regulation from 2021 that anyone acting as an exchange (p2p or otherwise) might need to register with them to continue trading - which i imagine might be a way to get.AA better grip on who's exchanging and what...
.
Jump to: