Topic: Recent events should make everyone withdraw all their coins to their own wallets (Read 1256 times)

best comparison of a centralised exchange is.. a gym membership
you signed up to a gym you became their member you were given the gym rules. if you break their equipment or insult or harass their staff. your out. its their business they get that option.. they can put in any penalty clause they want about what to do if they want to ban you. so you have no recourse legally. their rules or the highway... if you dont like it go else where is their motto

but with that said.. decentralised systems are not as good either. your then playing to the whims of each individuals rules they set for a trade. things they can back out of or decide against.
decentralised systems are not immune to regulations either.

many people that done peer-to peer trading via contacting each other on local bitcoins, got caught because they were using personal bank accounts but doing alot of wire transfers to random people each day. they were not caught via any bitcoin tracking. but it was their use of their banks for doing swaps that caught them. not declaring they were a money business but doing money transfers got them caught. so even decentralised exchanges will need to register as money transfer businesses if they are doing a suspiciously lot of transfers.

but atleast if they keep the amounts(values per trade) low. they may not have to do much paperwork/monitoring/ reporting as the values are negligible. but it stil wont be a free ride-wild west scenario for DE-FI users

many people have had their bank accounts locked(account closed and asked to take money elsewhere) due to owning/operating an unlicenced exchange. or even just transferring in or out of one. (affecting both the service and the customer)

something like this happens with bitcoin users on Binance, whereby some suspected users accounts were banned following the suspicious activities on them, but the question here is that how many user can deem fit to ask or challenge such exchange, ask for the court order that warrant such, the truth is that many don't know their rights not to talk of fighting for it, exchanges or government can exercise their power on us but we don't know when and how to fight back the attack on them simply because of fear or lack of the understanding of human right.


you're right, that is exactly what's happening in the system, but let's consider the need for going against all this unnecessary stress in centralized exchanges and go directly decentralized, this could give is better mastery over our digital finance and in doing that, we will be owe responsible for any attack or misconduct to our coins just as the topic in implies.


Another big challenge here is users don't read to understand their policy and privacy statement, they will rather click on agree just to scale through the registration process without fully understanding what's in there, here they have all the jurisdiction to  win any lawsuit users filed against them.

if you think the AML/KYC regulations are unfair.. just read some exchanges own policies..

usually/morally
if an exchange thinks something is suspicious. an exchange cannot reveal to the user, that the user is under investigation. it is simply suppose to in-house do an investigation to see if the red flags reach a threshold to then report it to government regulators. at this point exchanges do not freeze accounts or give the slightest hint that something is off to the customer. the transactions are allowed through and as long as there has been a report then its all fine and dandy..
if the regulator does their own investigation and sees something suspect or gets corroborating info from other sources. then the authority gets a court order to push an exchange to freeze an account and confiscate the customers funds..
but without this court order. a exchange cannot confiscate users funds..

now heres where things get complex.
a business can have its own business policy(separate to regulation) about what customers should do under the membership of the business. where by again the business should not confiscate or freeze an account under investigation.. but it can without saying why. stop a user from using its service, by allowing them to withdraw their funds and close their account.

again only in a case of a regulator authorised court order can a exchange confiscate users funds and forfeit the users value away from the user.

but here is the thing.
a company "can" set terms that the breach of service contract of allowing the withdrawal to close the account only applies for like 90 days, by which if the person has not withdrawn their funds within 90 days of notification of their terms of service breach. the funds can then be forfeited and kept by the exchange. where other terms then allow the exchange to avoid being sued by the customer because the customer agreed to the terms included clauses such as not holding the exchange liable for losses and not seeking court actions but instead "arbitrations" if they want any chance of returns after the 90 day limit example
.. in short its not a legal forfeit sanctioned by the exchange. instead in simple terms you authorised to donate your funds to the exchange by not claiming them in the terms agreed window of opportunity that was part of the registration policy agreement(terms of service).
to which leave you out in the cold with no method of recompense(unless you have a really good lawyer)

so even if regulators dont see the use of mixers as a crime because there is no evidence that the funds before/during/after a mixer actually came from criminal proceeds, with enough evidential proof to get a court order for. .. the exchange can treat the mixer tainted coins as a red flag violation of the business terms of service. and tell the customer they can no longer use the service and give them just 90 days to get their money out..
(which some privacy loving people use fake emails so wont see these notices triggering the countdown.)

so if you have any funds in an exchange read the terms of service.
note the things outside of the regulatory minimum. but inside the exchanges own policy.
EG its not against the law to not give KYC. but if the exchange has terms that all account holders need to offer out their identity but refuse. then thats the business term of service breach.

yep. although regulations may have a $1k threshold before the regulators would want ID. the only way some exchanges can achieve this is to ID people right at the registration process or allow them to register with basic info. then hook them into KYC to activate the market order service or any service they offer.

This same regulation is what is applicable to them that uses centralized exchange, not only do they have the keys to the coins but they can see every transactions details and choose to halt user account, reveal their identity or comply with the government policy on AML law enforcement to freeze and trace a user's identity, when using the centralized exchanges, they have similarities like that of the government banks that are in custody of our financial assets, they decide and dictate what should be done on user's account and places embargo.

something closer to your involvement that will concern you
its not any about any FUD about miners, devs, pools or node users, of bitcoin, that happened last year where idiots read it all wrong and tried to class anyone in bitcoin as being a "broker" (your buddies know this topic well)


but that same "broker" law that went around fudding bitcoin. actually does apply to something else..
a certain altnet(not to be named) will find that by offering "routing" by passing value around on behalf of other people and taking a commission(fee). will be classed as a payment service.

yep altnet "routers" would need to be registered as a business and the regulated under a licence.
of course they will target the major hubs(ones with more then half a dozen channels) first.

I believed because all these factors by the governments in the world Satoshi Nakamoto creates bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency in which individuals control their money instead of intermediary. And I also believed that Satoshi Nakamoto creates bitcoin for a system of proof not trust because trust has fall the world but proof will never fall the people because the individuals control their wallet keys not third party. And I also believed that before the Russian Invasion, bitcoin had been existing and the core message to everyone in the bitcoin space was informed that bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency which control by the owner of the wallet and yet someone would still keep their coin to a third party hand at that of freezing, and blocking accounts by the state government and banks should not blame them but blame him or herself.
Just like what happened in Nigeria. The government just came up early 2021 and instructed all banks to freeze and blocked all bitcoin accounts. The truth if the matter is that, no government can freeze or block bitcoin accounts but can in the process of transacting to fiat currency.

Really at that time in Russia, bitcoiners suffered set back, because even though you want to leave the country for the main time, there was no way because most buys and sellers of the assets accounts were blocked. So most people started transferring the bitcoin to their personal wallets. Therefore, I am still advising those people that are keeping their coins for the hands of third party should learn lesson from the OP story.

Just to add on the things mentioned, recently there has been a hacking of an exchange in Ronin where more than $600 million worth of ETH and USDC were stolen. The hacker allegedly cashed out in a centralized exchange where the team management was able to track it down. After tracing, they were able to at least freeze the account but around 6,000 ETH (out of 177,000 ETH); and around $25 million worth of USDC we’re absolutely stolen.

This is definitely a sign where people should keep their funds to their personal wallets, preferably a hardware one to at least add an extra layer of security in your funds.

Yeah. Rather than trusting the man behind the curtain, I’d rather stick with my personal, non-custodial wallet and hold my money myself. This way I have absolute control of my coins and can decide when and if to sell them and also to whom to send them. And if I want to sell some of my coins, I can do so at decentralized exchanges instead of trusting a centralized entity to hold my coins.

I’m sorry to say that a lot of people would still not learn a lesson despite everything that has been happening. They would still continue to make use of these centralized exchanges, until they face the consequences of doing so. Is this the first time that it is being said in this forum that when people don’t hold their private keys, the coin in their wallet does not belong to them?

This is a topic that is being said every time in this forum even before all these things started happening. So, if people don’t want to wise up while there is still time, then that’s their business. Those that don’t want to learn will eventually learn when the time comes and it happens to them

It only applies to centralized, such as Coinbase.com and the rest of them that are alike. Decentralized/Peer-to-peer exchanges are not going to be affected a single bit, they will continue to work as they are doing today.

But, I think I would avoid doing any form of transaction with people who are making use of all these centralized exchanges , because if you’re to receive any crypto currency transaction from them, they would be required to give out information about you who is making use of an address that is unknown to the government. So, if you want to make sure that you’re maintaining your privacy, keep your transaction peer-to-peer.

But how many users don't use any third party services? How many users buy/sell/trade their bitcoin exclusively peer to peer, hold all their own coins in their own wallets pointed at their own node, only spend bitcoin directly with another person or merchant without going through a payment processor? Very few. And now they all need to collect not just KYC but also details of the source of the bitcoin you are spending and report all that to the authorities, for every transaction.

I'm not clear on how this will affect non Europeans. If I use a casino, for example, which is headquartered in the EU but serves my jurisdiction, will they be forced to try to collect the same information from me? I assume the answer will be yes, since they cannot confirm I'm not in the EU without collecting my information first.

It will be unenforceable, but that won't stop them from trying. Politicians around the world continue to try to do equally stupid things such as banning encryption, so I have no doubt they will eventually try to pass laws on peer to peer transactions to.

Of course they do because many believe the government propaganda being fed to them. Russians are being told it's the Ukrainians that attacked them and they have no other choice than to defend their country. The propaganda machine talks about Nazis killing Russian-speaking Ukrainians and a "military intervention" is needed to put a stop to it. I heard fake news about Ukrainians developing biochemical weapons and toxics meant to hurt Russians exclusively. Cockroaches and rats are being breed to recognize and infect Russians. That's the type off bullshit they are being fed.     

Protest against what? They don't know the truth because their media isn't telling them what is happening. Government-controlled news agencies aren't showing how houses and civilian apartment blocks are in flames. They show images of tanks, artillery, and dangerous Ukrainians ready to slaughter anything Russian.     

There is your proof that a different stance against the occupation is being silenced. If you speak out and tell the truth, you go to prison and get beaten.

You might be right on this part I didn't know.
The point is that rule applies only to professional service provider (exchanges, payment processors etc).
There are not major implications when dealing with centralized, KYC'd exchanges.

This rule would be intolerable (and inapplicable, in reality) if applied to private citizens dealing with their own cryptos.

Actually, the new EU regulations propose AML check for every crypto transaction, regardless of the value:

Source? And I would hardly trust a survey conducted by the dictatorship which has a vested interest in showing strong support for themselves.

So you admit that the Russian people are effectively slaves, and then in the next breath denigrate them for not rising up against their masters knowing full well they will be beaten and thrown in jail for doing so?

I am by no means saying all Russians are innocent, but it is just as naive to say that they are all equally guilty of Putin's crimes.

A few days ago, a survey was conducted in Russia of Russian residents and 82 percent indicated that they support Putin's actions related to the invasion of Russian troops in Ukraine. This is a clear answer to the question of whether they are now guilty of deliberate executions by Russian military of women and children in Ukraine.

When people come out to mass protests against the actions of their authorities, the authorities cannot do anything. And if a relatively small number of people come out in Russia, they are taken by the arms and led without resistance into trucks standing nearby, and passers-by calmly walk nearby, as we often see, this is not the resistance of the people. They are frightened slaves, except for this small part of the protesting population. The political passivity of the population of Russia is the reason for their guilt in the death of Ukrainian women and children.

The Russians allow themselves to be intimidated. In Ukraine, at the end of 2013, they also protested against the actions of their authorities, and the authorities began shooting at unarmed protesters. But from this the protesters became even more. Then President Yanukovych, fearing for his life, fled to Russia. The people of Russia are not capable of this. And this is his fault.

This is more true everyday.
The new EU regulation impose an hyper draconian AML check for every transaction above 1,000 EUR.
Bear in mind that currently Italy has a 2,000 EUR cash payment upper limit. So cryptos are well below this line.

I have been seeing some of the speculations about this option, and there is one thing that I did not like that happened in Colombia, is that Binance clients were victims of an investigation process by a foreign country other than Colombia, and the Binance's decision was to freeze all Colombian accounts until they see the origin of the funds of each of the clients, I consider this a violation, for me there is no safer place to have Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies than in one's own wallet without it being managed or in the hands of third parties, because it is assumed that here in crypto the Satoshi values should prevail or for which BTC was created, and this one of the premises is that each person manages his money without the intervention of third parties, from that moment I understood that it is better to keep crypto safe in your own wallet.

I was wondering what their major intent could be by influencing coinbase to include KYC before processing a transaction, this is truly uncalled for and is a bridge against the trust of securing ones privacy with those exchanges, i will advise most especially the bitcoin investors to shift their coin to the wallet rather than on exchanges but for those that do frequent trading like day trading swing or scalping may find using those exchange suitable for their daily trading because they will want to minimize transaction fees and conversion rate using exchanges.


To me we cannot totally avoid the role of exchanges but we can limit the level of risk it may implicate us, that's why if you're investing on bitcoin using exchanges is as risky as playing a gamble with your coins but a little portal of your coin can be on exchanges trading. Well i want to believe there are still lot of bitcoiners out there seriously investing without knowing the existence of a platform like this where they can get more enlightenment, as doing it well is not knowing it all.

What's the law in Canada regarding fiat transfers? I can't imagine the KYC limit for them is as low as $1000, which is only $800 USD? In the US it's $10,000. This seems like the Canadian government being particularly hostile to cryptocurrency.

And how is this going to work in practice? Coinbase will refuse to process your withdrawal unless you provide a name and address? And how are they going to verify that? If someone generates a brand new address for you to send coins to, and you tell Coinbase "That address belongs to me", how can they verify otherwise? Or since we already know they monitor your withdraws after you make them and use blockchain analysis to de-anonymize them (so if you do say an address belongs to you and they discover it doesn't they'll seize your coins), what's stopping you withdrawing to your own address first and then sending it to the third party? Which kind of makes the whole point of this thread - exchanges can only enforce this bullshit when you let them hold your money. Get your bitcoin in to your own wallet before it is too late, and be free to spend it wherever, whenever, and however you choose.

And as always, delete Coinbase.

Regarding why you shouldn’t hold your coins on an exchange, today on Twitter this surfaced:



If you leave your coins on an exchange, you leave yourself exposed to those aggressive practices.
Apparently, the Canadian government walked down the dystopian path with cryptos, truckers and democracy.

Two mandatory reads:

Coinbase the most anti-Bitcoin organisation. Make #DeleteCoinbase great again
A Treatise on Bitcoin and Privacy