Topic: Operation Chokepoint 2.0 (Biden's administration quitet ban on crypto) - page 2. (Read 423 times)

We have seen this coming for a while now and we know they are doing this to pave the way for a "cashless" economy, where they can fully track all transactions on their digital cash technologies.

We know most criminal activities are not done with Crypto, but rather with physical cash. (How many drug dealers on the street are accepting crypto as payment for their drugs.... right?)

So, they will eliminate their competition and replace it with their own centralized digital version of cash, which they control. 

But it was also late in 2013 when Bitcoin made an all time high. It was probably a strong enough statement that Bitcoin doesn't care at all. Whether it was more of the effect of the first halving in 2012 isn't the point. It still means Bitcoin is stronger than the development under Obama's administration.

If Obama failed a decade ago, Biden will fail more today. But the point is Bitcoin doesn't care. It's interesting to note that Bitcoin creates an ATH in every administration. It had one during Obama, another during Trump, and another during the current administration.

Agreed! Every move made by governments that impose strict rules and regulations on the people are only made to protect itself and those who financially support their political campaigns. I am not quite certain why there are still people who are not very skeptical on the actions of the government. Everyone should be concerned everytime there is a new bill that passes into law.

Decentralised exchanges don't operate with fiat money. They could replace it with stablecoins, but at the end of the day, stablecoin issuers also would need access to banking to hold fiat deposits and process transactions.

We need people to be able to buy/sell for fiat.


They won't ban it outright, the time for that has passed a long time ago. Now, when crypto is pretty much mainstream, they can only slowly cripple trading and other crypto-projects to keep it contained and not pose a threat to the financial system.

Drifting a bit OT but I will not say it's an apples to oranges comparison but rather a lemons to limes.
If you had money in an FDIC insured bank that failed. You got your money back, many people got their money back well above their insurance limits.

The stock / bond / mortgage holders who got crushed I would put more into the people who invested in all the scam coins that are out there that vanished in the middle of the night so to speak.

When you had places lending 110%+ of STATED (not appraised) property value those of us watching who had seen the dot com implosion knew what was going to happen. The only question was when.

Either way, it's what we have now. So although we can keep sitting here and complaining about it, without getting peoples support behind it nothing is going to happen.
And here is the kicker that nobody want's to hear. Most people WANT more regulation of things like this. Because *most* people don't want to know or care about how BTC works they just want to make money off of it somehow, and regulation makes them feel safe. IF they actually are or not safe is a different story, but they just want to feel safe.

We here are not in the most people category,  so we have a different view.

-Dave

You are actually using the wrong language here - the ban technically comes in when Biden's administration makes way in the 2024 elections.

---

Anyway, they can try all they want, and I'm sure Bitcoin Magazine will be able to include this as a reference in one of their cartoon strips about "attacks on Bitcoin".

firstly some clarity
its not governments watching citizens. you wont see a politician sat at a computer looking at citizens daily activity

secondly
50-100-200year ago (country dependant, dates are different)

banks set up their business (property laws) allowed them to self regulate

when people handed over gold to banks the banks internal rules over its property was gold became the banks property and the bank made private property contracts with depositors to "promise them" a redemption rate if they handed back the contract.. (bearer bonds(first promissory notes) aka bank notes)

then banks had other people wanting to become banks. so the establishment set minimum standards for its competitors. and that started the bank standards charters (policies and requirements to be a bank)

such as having to use the established bank promissory notes and need to pay the established banks a licence fee. and so on
all of this lead up many things we still see now

over the years bad banks done bad things. which is where governments set up independant regulators. not a government, not a bank. but independant auditors..

banks then lobbied to get a bit of sway in what they can do with a regulator
and slowly banks became secretly the regulators
(again reminder, its not politicians sat at computers in regulator offices, its banks(well exbankers)

banks then had secret meetings with polititicians to change other laws. and eventually banks did not have to even honour its promises (gold/sterling silver de-peg)

few decades later we had the work around #disruptbanking "payment services" like paypal and venmo and union pay where they didnt need to have the minimum requirements banks set as policy/charter.
this then soon changed where payment services then too needed to meet standards, but not enough to earn a bank charter. so they became just "payment services"/"money service businesses" thus not competing with banks, but an underclass custodians

now we have alternative currencies like crypto. trying to disrupt banking again

banks dont want to give crypto exchanges a "bank charter" but dont want crypto exchanges to have less rules then payment services/money service businesses. and so bank regulators latched onto crypto by defining it as a currency so they then can declare businesses doing certain functions are defined as MSB


what you find in the middle of this century ago
banks wanted a bit more control. so they lobbied government to set up some middle man supervisor where banks can report on customers and competitors.
which is where these middlemen regulators were run by ex-bankers. not auditors nor politicians
these regulators favoured the banks not the citizen
and no they are not government politician managed.  they are endorsed by government but ran like a business with ex bankers as ceo

---

now for those wondering how to change this
well most countries have an election each year.
maybe form an idea of saying "we wont vote for you unless your election pledge includes:...."

and then do petitions for your local candidates. to let them know without a doubt what policies citizens want to see

so start with "regulation overhaul to be less business sheriff gold badge policing.. and more consumer protection related"

if you can get a large local population demanding that their representative does things in a certain way. and enough regions do the same thus making majority of representatives/candidates of next election are singing the same songsheet. then thats the way most political laws move towards what citizens want

Good points but the problem is that the regulations are made by governments to monitor people's activities not to ensure their security. This is why they enforce a lot of restrictions on customers such as KYC which is not going to help with the business owner scamming its users but instead will give all your detailed information and your activities to the authorities.
We see that in the banking system too. Remember the disasters leading to 2008? All those banks were regulated and members of FDIC and yet they ruined the economy and in the end they were bailed out while their "customers" were crushed.

private property (as bitcoin was pre 2014) had human rights to privacy by default
(property law)

by being currency(2013+) its now part of "bank secrecy act" rules which is different to human rights. where financial data is not treated the same as private property

yep i said it you have no rights to privacy when using currency
and thats been the law since way before the most people were born(1970)

so its not a new thing that was invented by obama after bitcoin was invented and used to fight bitcoin. its something thats always been in play for 50 years. which bitcoiners think they are not part of because they still think its still the ethos of bitcoin 2009-2013.. even though they accept the "mainstream free publicity" benefits of bitcoin categorisation 2013+. they just didnt read the downside of accepting the categorisation of bitcoin 2013+

oh by the way..
china that banned treating bitcoin as currency. this stops regulated businesses from exchanging bitcoin. (and if a business is offering exchanges it should be regulated)

but bitcoin is actually protected in china as private property.. allowing people to privately trade and own it(p2p). and they cant do anything about it
yep a chinese person can still own bitcoin and privately trade it p2p. they just cant find a regulated centralised exchange in china to exchange it

The other 1/2 the of it is that is also has the potential to save people from getting scammed by others who are operating without the proper licensing.

DaveF goes out and files the paperwork, gets the background checks, posts valid bonds and insurance.
pooya87 does not.

DaveF as has to charge more to cover his expenses. pooya87 does not.

DaveF disappears with a bunch of peoples money. After a bunch of time and effort they get at least some of their money back from the bond and insurance.

pooya87 disappears with a bunch of peoples money. After a bunch of time and effort people get nothing. Possibly an auction here on BTC from other community members trying to help out.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5434623

Even today there are banks here in the US that do not have FDIC insurance. And people keep putting money into them. And are surprised when they disappear in the middle of the night with their funds.

As franky1 said. You want to be a currency you get to play by those rules.

-Dave

someones been on the weed and has the tin foil at on

by being a currency. you join the competition of the banks.
bitcoin could have continued as-is, being defined as private property and not need compliance of businesses to be the same as banks compliance

we could have developed our own security/insurance things to keep businesses honourable.. but instead we just got too happy that governments wanted to step in
and "legitimise bitcoin" (endorse) without thinking of the negatives of such act

to me regulations should not be about delegating money service businesses to police the customers. regulations should be regulators auditing the businesses and taking businesses to court quickly when they screw customers over

..
yes i dislike the hypocrisy of "licencing"
where by there are MORAL businesses not screwing over customers who are not "legit" because they didnt "just register" now being easily slammed by their banks
and how those that do register get a free pass on certain immoral acts and given weak penalties for doing so simply because they did "just register"

Yes, Yes. NSA also knows the color of your underwear from another continent while pinky swearing that they are protecting you from "the bad guys" and doing it for the national security.

yep daveF said it better

but still worth adding in. that the real cause of the requirement of licencing for the big players above X threshold.. was defining bitcoin as a currency rather than its original 2009-2014 category, which was private property

becasue its the "defined as currency" part that allowed the regulators to step in..
..
pre 2014 people could trade as much as they liked without regulation/licencing because bitcoin was treated the same as trading pokemon cards and artwork back then

It's easier to say it's called making everyone play by the same rules.

People who took the time, set themselves up as a MSB, properly filed the paperwork and everything else were and are loosing money to people who were doing things under the table. Want to take $100 of BTC and convert it to fiat for a friend, fine. Want to do it for a stranger, also fine. Want to do it for 1000 people and charge a percentage. You are running a MSB and should be treated as such.

-Dave

i as a brit can say this without bias...

i read the OP's content as if he is a republican/trump supporter being anti democratic party

however the actual events are not banning all accounts
its banning accounts of bank account owners that are doing business but not being licenced, when said businesses are operating as a money business
its also businesses that operate certain flaggable offenses such as laundering russian riches or gambling services in a no-gambling region or other politically prohibited stuff

yes those businesses might be operating ethically for their customers. but they still need to operate legally

the fault here lays in where bitcoin stopped being treated as a tradable private property and instead traded as a currency which allowed regulators to get their fingers in and grab power over crypto businesses

its the downside of "going mainstream recognition as a currency circa 2013 and being more enforced since

Ooh, scary stuff, I'm scared guys can someone post a ban appeal to the white house? We promise to be good from now on. Joe the sleepyhead.

No surprises there! Same has been done in my country as well.  This is a well thought-out move by the world leaders. Every government understands that crypto market has not yet reached to an extent where they can survive on its own. A seamless integration is needed with fiat for the crypto market to survive and grow. So the governments are cutting the access to banking services for the crypto related businesses.

In my country, the government did the same to a company called Zebpay. Now they have moved to Singapore and operate in 30 countries except my country. Options will be there but now the crypto businesses will have to go through a lot of regulatory hassles.

This is not surprising at all since it has always been how the modern dictatorships work. They quietly enforce their illegal authority on people and call it democracy and anybody who speaks against it and gains momentum will be "deleted".
This is also not surprising knowing that US dollar is losing its dominance slowly and in a couple of years its value could be lower than Venezuela bolivar as more countries dump it. The US regimes fear is obvious so they try to eliminate all competition, whether it is Chinese Yuan or decentralized bitcoin. Funny thing is that they lose in all cases...

if you are running a service of swapping "currency"  for a fee, requiring using your bank account for wire transfers as part of that swap.. you are a money service business MSB/payment facilitator. requiring a licence and a business bank account

being a MSB/PF is not a acceptable term of use in your personal bank account terms of service agreement

local bitcoin users that done regular p2p swaps for fiat .. got hit the most by their banks flagging the unusual frequency of wire transfers..
this has been ongoing for years (2014+) world wide. when countries legitimised crypto as currency "money" (instead of private property(pre 2014)

but thats the downside of when bitcoin became a "legitimised currency" in law, which meant those doing money service businesses need to then become licenced businesses if they do more then whats deemed "personal use"

you can be a MSB but not from a personal account without a MSB licence
yes needing to get a licence which means KYC customers and such.

the amateur users stupidly thought the solution was to open new bank accounts and then use de-fi, thinking the fault lays in links to using 'localbitcoins' as the cause..
but localbitcoins only fault was advertising amareurs, which meant amateurs got too popular. doing too many wire transfers thus hitting the thresholds of flags of non personal use  in their personal accounts

but again the de-fi users if they get too popular by having too frequent random transfers to strangers for amounts outside of whats deemed personal use. will get caught running a MSB

hint hint. dont get too popular de-fi guys if you are still using a personal bank account to do your swaps

US is trying to ban Bitcoin, not only the centralized exchange!

Although decentralized exchange can be a way for the US citizens to trade Bitcoin, you're breaking the laws and you're must make sure anything you're doing will not get detected by SEC! when you're using decentralized exchange, you will need to use bank accounts to receive your fiat which is leave a trace for the chainalysis and SEC to track you.

I have no idea why you can think using a decentralized exchange will offer 100% anonymity, it doesn't simple as that.