Topic: New KYC rules for crypto wallets - page 2. (Read 528 times)

There are many other ways to withdraw your crypto funds without undertaking kyc from such centralized exchange. Decentralized is what we liked the most, that's why we are going to use a decentralized exchange.

I think that kind of crypto exchange will be the eyes of the government towards their plan of putting tax in every crypto funds that we have.

This is another reason why centralized wallets and exchanges can't be trusted, I don't use coinbase wallet because I have no access to my private key, any wallet that requires email and password to login is plain centralized wallet, stay away from such wallets

Are they, though? I know this line is peddled by the media (the media which just happens to be bankrolled by the fiat banking system), but is there actually any hard evidence that vast sums of money are being laundered through bitcoin? The studies that I have seen regarding mixers have shown that a very small fraction of money passing through a mixer (somewhere in the region of 8%) is coming from darknet markets, hacks, or other illegal activity, which means that money laundering is only a fraction of a fraction of mixer traffic. Given that mixer traffic itself is only a fraction of bitcoin transactions, then money laundering truly is a tiny percentage. As always, the amount of money laundering being done through cash, or indeed, being done through the massive fiat banks we are trying to take back control from, dwarfs anything being done by bitcoin.

Not really. So for the sake of (hyperbolic) argument, let's say they coerce ThomasV in to forcing all new Electrum wallets to connect to a central server and refuse to allow users to create a wallet prior to creating KYC. One of two things would happen. Either someone else would simply fork the repo and continue developing Electrum without such ridiculous requirements, or the community would just abandon Electrum and use a different wallet.

The thing is, nothing about creating an address is top secret or even that complicated. A random number (your private key) and a few lines of code is sufficient to create an address. It is impossible to make KYC mandatory to create an address.

I wasn't disputing any of that, in fact in a previous response I already gave my take on what their intentions actually are.
And it obviously goes against the vision of Satoshi, I assumed that goes without saying.

I didn't read the PDF but would it be possible for them to  mandate the developers of  the wallet like electrum wallet and the likes that users has to submit KYC documents?

To the exchanges I guess we all have already grasp the idea that they really will ask these data eventually but I wouldn't expect that even the wallets like hardware wallets. This is really not half measures anymore.

This kind of limitation on KYC is already implemented on our local wallet coins.ph few many years ago so I will not be surprised to see this kind new law since its inevitable that they will regulate the amount of money the user can withdraw or deposit in crypto. This is there counter measure for money laundering since many money launderer are buying BTC over the counter then withdraw it to there bank. In that case, they can easily wash there money using crypto since wallets and banks don't limit the amount of widrawn/deposit.

From what I understand, govern's main concern is the use of decentralized wallets regarding the amounts the users utilize them for. But even if this is the case, or just the exchanges are forced to use "enhanced KYC" (so something additional to the KYC procedures used now), this can be a great benefit in the end: to be more precise, it is possible that more and more users to cease using centralized exchanges and stick to standalone, decentralized and anonymous wallets, as it was meant to be. Satoshi did not create Bitcoin for being speculated on exchanges.

If people will start using Bitcoin in an anonymous, decentralized, peer-to-peer manner, they won't have problems with the govern anymore. They'll take the power from the elites back to their hands, as Satoshi intended. And this could be a huge step toward crypto-anarchy, freedom and liberty!

Wallets like Coinbase and Xapo implemented KYC a few years back, i do not remember whether i voluntarily completed or they enforced as it happened a few years back and you should expect strict rules being implemented in every cryptocurrency related business and there are proposals from the EU to implement strict KYC by exchanges without the loophole to withdraw minimum amounts and we should expect the same in other cryptocurrency related business as well.

Obviously their intention is not for the good of all. Their intention is control the population and bring bitcoin under their control as much as possible, because it threatens the fiat banking system which is what their power depends on.

Which is an equally stupid position for them to try to enforce, since it is essentially impossible to prove if an address is custodial or non-custodial.

How? They want me to submit my master public key along with my ID documents so they know every address I generate? Fuck that. Anyone even considering allowing this to happen should just go back to fiat, since what you will be left with will be less private, more monitored, and depend on trusting more third parties than fiat will.

Not at the moment. The Bisq app isn't a standalone app at the moment - it simply links up to your computer software and provides notifications to your phone of trade activities, offers being accepted, etc.

Non custodial wallets is actually the target of the regulation, inorder for governments to be able to fully monitor transactions and money flow in cryptocurrencies.

From what I understand, they plan to use the exchanges not the wallets themselves. So if you have an account on a centralized exchange and intend to transfer bitcoins to a non custodial wallet, you would be put through 'enhanced KYC' for amounts above $3k and $10k. And the success of the transaction would depend on the financial regulations, so your funds would be effectively held till it's approved (for $10k+) and your non custodial wallets would be linked to your identity.

It seems the app needs to be paired with the desktop version for it to work. Is there any way one can use it without a PC?

KYC is not needed actually because bitcoin is independent and can stand alone even without regulations. However, due to some conflict of interest from the different countries around the world so they have to regulate this kind of system. I do not like what they are doing with bitcoin but if their intention is for the good of all then so be it. Hooefully, it will not really hurt the bitcoin system.

I don't know what detailed KYC can exchanges will implement with this so called enhance verification. Crypto enthusiast have been complying for years, even sending their personal info and pictures just to get verified.

There's still p2p exchanges out there like:

• https://hodlhodl.com/
• https://bisq.network/

KYC is a common thing for all exchanges but this new purposed rules says something more than the KYC for transactions above $10,000.

People want to use crypto to be anonymous. There is absolutely no point in taking documents for wallets. People will surely use the anonymous wallets in this case. How dumb this thing feels.

It's about surveillance. America, and most other western nations, are surveillance states. None of this is about prevent terrorists, catches criminals, protects the children, or any of the other nonsense they feed you when they are invading your freedoms. This is about surveillance. Just as they don't like people being able to communicate with each other privately which is why they try to ban encryption or force back doors in to software, and just as they don't like people being able to browse the internet privately which is why they record all your traffic and try to attack Tor, they definitely don't like people being able to spend or transfer money and buy thing privately without them being able to stick their noses in. Knowledge is power. Surveillance is control.

Enter Bisq. It is open source and freely distributed, just like bitcoin. Short of taking control of 51% of the hashrate (which would render bitcoin useless anyway) and censoring my transactions, they can't stop me trading peer to peer with another user.

All centralized exchanges ask for your KYC for years. What are you talking about...? Don't tell me you did not know that. The problem is not with centralized exchanges, but with independent, decentralized wallets. Govern's move regards these wallets, not the exchanges, as the exchanges already ask for KYC.

This is a quote from the article you mentioned in OP (boldface is mine):

But this will be forced to be implemented on coinbase and other regulatory exchanges. Anyone knows if binance would be liable to obey these new regulations ? 

I hope that most wallets will just ignore this. Non-custody wallets as ownr, exodus, coinomi, etc even dont know how much customers hodl there

In reality it won't matter since there are hundreds of wayout to turn your btc into fiat. In a way or other people do exchange bitcoin over p2p sites, national or international and can work it out.

If KYC stuff becomes stringent then there would be another companies who will offer KYC less withdrawl by using other countries rules and regulations. They will have more customer base and more income so they will surely do this for minimal fees.


This kind of group is increasing daily. People in my circle are actually showing up crypto currencies as their second income and they file taxes for it. This helping them to get more credibility in the banking system.

So yeah, there won't be much tension on the crypto system for sure.

This is one of the reasons I fail to understand the motive behind the proposal of these sort of regulations. It is just an attempt to track and monitor money flow in bitcoin rather than the publicized reason, which would be to prevent illegal usage of it, as there are many ways around these checks for someone who really wants to evade detection.

This singular action would likely not affect Bitcoin that much or at all, those who care a lot about their privacy would find ways around it and would not be so easily pushed out of the BTC space. Those who do not wouldn't find a problem with the regulation.
Although if the proposal gets approved and more countries possibly adopt it, the noose could get tighter around private transactions and decentralized exchanges could be targeted.