Topic: Rep. Jim Himes of CT Allegedly Sneaks in Anti-Crypto Provision into Bill (Read 327 times)

Thank you. That's what I thought you were saying, I just wanted to push it further, and theorize a bit on Bitcoin's immunity to all anti-crypto moves.

I personally think that any current, or future, cryptocurrency has the right to exist, and whether to use it or not, everyone decides for themselves, but if legislators decided to treat BTC differently than other crypto, I wouldn't mind.

I hate when people do things like sneaking in short but radical clauses into legislation. It's such an unfair thing to do because the MPs can't always read everything and keep track of small changes. As for this particular power, being given by striking out some things about imposing regulation, giving one person a lot of power without checks and balances in place isn't the right thing to do.
As for the liquidity matter pointed out by Darker45, it is a vague enough phrase that at least allows restricting the exchange from maintaining the useful infrastructure for trading.

I am not generalizing as claiming anti-crypto provisions could only harm shitcoins and not Bitcoin. Bitcoin is crypto. Anti-crypto could also mean anti-Bitcoin. So it will have to be on a case-to-case basis. It depends on the particular provision. I'm afraid Bitcoin has not become so powerful it has reached an untouchable stage or a level in which it is completely immune to anti-Bitcoin actions. I don't see it that way.

I am only referring to this particular bill, which I haven't read word for word, by the way. The bill is not to shut down all centralized crypto exchanges, as being interpreted here. It only prohibits these exchanges from providing liquidity for cryptocurrencies. In this particular move, Bitcoin is least affected.

Interesting. So, you mean that that "Anti-Crypto Provision" can harm sh*tcoins, but BTC is going to be alright? And that centralized exchanges will be more regulated, and they won't be able to report fake volumes, but it won't be like all crypto exchanges will be shut down? I mean, I know it can be a dangerous oversimplification, but to me it looks like we can say that Bitcoin has become so powerful that those "anty-crypto" actions, any of them, can be a threat to anything but BTC. Bitcoin will always be least affected. Can we say that?

point 3 allowed her to make an order active even before it was set in regulation. by simply supplying a notice of proposed regulation along with the order. but that order can only last 120 days or if the proposed regulation gets promulgated(set into law) it can then continue beyond 120 days.

i initially thought it meant just the 120day part was removed (silly me for reading the blog). but then reading the actual bill and its affect its actually removing the ability to implement a order 120days before its in set regulation

the whole point 3 is removed. not just the 120day part. but the ability to make a order active before its rule is even a set regulation..
because now she can only do orders(with consultation) that are already set into regulation or law. meaning only regulations that are actually active regulations.. not proposed.

try reading the point 3. and reading what it is about. its not about transparency of an order. its about implementing an order that is not yet set into regulation...
and the bill is saying remove that clause.

your silly "public announcement"
the fed does not publicly announce it wants to shut down customer X account. it always has and always will secretly tell an exchange to close it.. because the exchange needs to be informed of what they need to do. without breaching privacy of the exchange or customer on the nightly public media news. (news media would get spammed with 1000+ an hour announcements, in your view)

if you think that its about 'publicly announcing' every order to congress/senate for every account suspension. then you really dont know what your talking about. the capital would get nothing done if it had to read every customer suspension order of every MSB (which is your view of how you think things work)

it has nothing to do with public transparency. never has. the exchange still gets informed of an order.
but that order can now (if bill passes) only be an order of a active law/regulation, not a proposed future law/regulation.

the bill removes the ability to make orders of proposed future possible/whimsy stuff not yet in regulation

It's quite clear you do not understand the language in the US legal system whatsoever (which to be honest isn't surprising given you aren't a US citizen. The problem here is that you are trying to hold court on something you don't understand). This is the last time I will respond to your willful ignorance on this matter as I am bored of repeating myself.

Once again, the government always had the powers to bring forth a federal regulation which would be subjected to due process and public scrutiny before being implemented. With this change, they will now have the power to simply declare special measure with no scrutiny whatsoever.

Federal orders and federal regulations are specific things which have specific meanings which you clearly don't understand. What you have written here doesn't even make sense.

Again this doesn't make sense because you don't understand what orders and regulations are. Paragraph 3 said that whenever a federal order was issued, it would be issued alongside a public notice. This has now been scrapped, meaning the orders can be issued in secret.

no it does not
the bill removea.. the ability to impose orders that had not yet become regulation... because now she has to only do orders that fit within the law and regulation


this exception before allowed her to implement a rule before it was even put into regulation.. now she can only impose orders that are already in regulation.

meaning she has to make it a regulation before then ordering a MSB to abide by it,

yea even on my first read i too thought it was only about removing the time limit. and yep i read it again and realised it actually removes her ability to impose a rule before it is promulgated(put into regulation/law)

meaning she cant (if bill passes) just make an order simply because she proposes it might become law.. she has to order something that already is within regulation/law from now on

this is not about pro-government. this is about your exaggeration.

its funny how you say you dont know what it may mean, that its ambiguous and might mean something else. but then you try your hardest to say it means X.

sorry but she has no whimsy, she has to consult on all orders.
there is no new powers to freeze accounts. even you admit now they always had powers to request MSB's freeze accounts.

i told you months ago at the last twitter campaign exaggeration that if you are that interested in how it affects money service businesses you should try researching the regulations and laws imposed on them (which now yellen has to follow without whimsy)

Maybe try reading my entire reply before foaming at the mouth. I literally said exactly that:

Currently allowed to be used. That sounds pretty much synonymous with "already have this power".  

Incorrect. (a)(2)(C) is striken, removing the clause "subsection (b)(5) may be imposed only by regulation" and replacing it with the much looser "by order, regulation, or otherwise as permitted by law".

Incorrect. This quite clearly states that any special measure must be accompanied by an announcement of that special measure and can only last 120 days. This is removed, which gives the government the ability to implement special measures indefinitely and without announcing them publicly.

Incorrect. It says so right in the text you have quotes. "May prohibit, or impose conditions upon certain transmittals of funds". She's not asking anything. She's telling. And given that pretty much every cryptocurrency exchange provides a service for foreign users as well, then they all fall in to this category.

And even if you are right (which you blatantly aren't), but even if you were the fact that the language is ambiguous enough that sitting lawmakers can interpret it in the worst possible way is enough of a concern that this needs fixed.

Still don't understand why you are pro-government interference.

wow i said one example. and o-e-l-e-o by-passed how he had been proven wrong in that example, to then cry that i did not explain more examples..

anyway.. moving on..
THEY ALREADY HAVE THE POWER TO FREEZE ACCOUNTS!!!

before

after

read it again. and this time read the parts in both the new 5 and 6 that require "in consultation with"

so the summary
a2 is changed where she now cant just 'may require' and instead 'may by order, regulation or permitted in law require' thus depowering her from whimsy

a3 by removing not just a 120day rule for whimsy rules not yet in regulation, but the entire rule 3 meaning not even whimsy is allowed and she can only make orders that are by regulation or otherwise permitted by law

b5 allowed her to order both domestic services servicing foreign institutions to be told to freeze accounts of such customers. now she can only tell domestic institutions but only after consulting other agencies

b6 if a out of jurisdiction transactions/entities is deemed a money laundering concern. she can ask (ONLY) the domestic institutions to stop serving out of jurisdiction transactions/entities

and all of 2 4 5 6 all involve her consulting with other agencies and the courts before doing anything

..
some people have read it as if it gives her power to ask other nations to freeze their services. wrong
some people have read it as if it gives her more whimsy power.  wrong
some people have read it as if it gives her more whimsy power to freeze for any reason.  wrong


yes points 5&6 now read as being.. instead of only looking at foreign BANKING institutions as a laundering concern, it is now looking at any out of jurisdiction types of transactions as a laundering concern, can (by consultations and authorisation if imposition does not cause undue cost, time, impedance on business) ask a domestic service to stop supporting such transactions

but there is no whimsy about it. and it has to be within regulation or by law. LAWFULLY prove, for instance that bitcoin as a whole is a money laundering concern, to then tell a domestic service to stop supporting bitcoin, otherwise she has to show that for instance certain ransomware addresses are illicit and to ask a domestic business to stop servicing addresses(customer deposits) that have ransomware taint.
but again for emphasis, only after(in both exampled instances) consulting other agencies to calculate the risk/reward impact of an orders imposition on a domestic money service business..
..
this is not just about bitcoin. this also can be about ransomware/blackmailers/scammers that use apple/google giftcards to get value to the scammer too.

the aim is to stop scammers being able to cash out through american money services

The whole system of government in America is a mess, it seems to work for vested interests and against the public good in so many situations. The fact that these mega bills which start out targeting one specific thing, get loads of totally unrelated amendments and provisions tacked on is a disgrace to governance really. Every single law should be debated separately, but politicians are incredibly lazy and build these monstrosities in the name of compromise. You can just tell there is all sorts of back room dealing going on - like, we want this bad thing added, so we'll let you add one bad thing in return or the whole bill will be voted down by our team type games.

And we're clear about the part where that's your interpretation and that you believe there aren't any other valid interpretations.  You haven't actually raised any new points, though.  You're just repeating things as though we haven't understood what you're saying.  We know that's what you think.  But we don't care what you think.  You can't give us the assurances we are looking for.  I'm sorry your ego can't accept that.

At this point one must wonder why franky1 is so keen to give the US government more and more ability to meddle in your private affairs and transactions.

Deliberately missing out the most important part.

Subsection (b)(5):

This is the section that gives the government powers to freeze accounts.

This is how this section is currently allowed to be used:

This is how this section will be allowed to be used should this bill pass:

It is obvious for even a 5 year old that the way that this can be implemented has been made significantly wider. "Otherwise as permitted by law" absolutely means the government can now implement this unilaterally without any public process, as would be required if they wanted to pass it as a regulation instead. They even entirely scrapped the 120 day time limit. If you want to go looking for some other part of the US Code which restrict them from doing so, then please be my guest. You won't find it. You might also want to read up on the process of how federal regulations are issued, since you don't seem to understand the difference between that and the government being able to simply declare that x is going to happen as long as they don't break any other laws.

doomad. your still social dramatising.. you really are getting pety and boring. and your insults lack any substance. so here have a (yawn)
i know you dont understand the actual bills wording so you play around by saying 'its a draft' and 'no one can know', as your defence for you not knowing or wanting to know..
.. but i edited my last post to show you one short sharp example of the exaggeration by your team mates. of the actual words in the bill

heck ill quote it here..

oh and if you want to still pretend that yellen can do anything, at a whim.. i should quote this

so yea, she cant decide anything by herself

If the legislation has not been finalised yet, no one can really say with any certainty exactly how it can or cannot be exploited.  And even once the legislation is finalised, it would require a decent amount of foresight to say with certainty that no one will be able to find a loophole to exploit.  If people have legitimate concerns about the potential for someone to abuse it, then it's only sensible to request the wording to be changed to leave as little room for ambiguity as possible. 

Most people aren't fond of ambiguity when it comes to rules.  It leaves room for interpretation.  I can see why someone like you loves ambiguity, because you can just believe whatever the hell your vivid imagination wants to believe.  But that's not good enough for the rest of us.  We desire a degree of certainty.  And we don't see that in the current proposal.  So, unless you can show me evidence that you've mastered time-travel, please stop treating everything like a foregone conclusion and acting as though only you know how this is all going to unfold.  You are not in a position to make any guarantees about who can do what.

Just because you act confidently that this isn't an issue, none of us hold you in high enough regard to have any faith in your assessment of the situation.  As usual, you'll blame us for that.  And, as usual, we'll tell you that you're the one failing to present a compelling argument.  All you do is say "I'm right because I interpret something I read this way.  That means I've researched it.  If you don't interpret it the same way I do, that means you haven't researched it".  Funnily enough, that doesn't assuage our concerns.  We want clarity from those involved in the drafting of this bill, not the bewildering commentary of a deranged freak like you.   

doomad. the funny part is that i am reigning in o-e-l-e-o's confirmation bias and his exaggerations..
but your insults are boring when you pretend someone else is doing what your buddy is doing.. such a lame rebuttal.
if you cant work out who is doing the exaggerating and saying things not wrote in the bill.. then thats your problem

whats next, slap someone. and then cry by pretending you got slapped. sounds about right.

and if you think that not being a hugging ass-kisser is sociopathy. then you really need to so some research.

anyway dont reply with more social drama. just go read the bill.. not your friends summary, and not some twitter or blog post summary

incase anyone is interested, here is one example of the changes that some have EXAGGERATED
here is an edit the bill asks for:

so lets do the edit
before bill:

after bill

as you can see.. its actually made it so that they have to do it within the law. meaning its not just on a whim. which was the before case.
but o-e-l-e-o thought that this addition made it easier to require domestic financial institution to take special measures.

I'm sure he would if they'd listen to him.  The moment he completes his "research" (otherwise known as conclusion shopping, confirmation bias and taking things so far out of context to the point where it means something completely different), it absolutely does mean (in his mind) that he's the only person in the whole wide world who knows the truth.  Then he moans about social matters and emotions because his brain isn't able to process those concepts like other people can.  Such is the nature of sociopaths.

i have to laugh.
o-e-l-e-o quoting twitter as his 'back-uo' argument

did you even read the stuff
firstly jerry britto wrote a exaggerated blog piece, which he presented to tom emmer who just parroted it out in a version of the exaggerated blog piece, without actually reading the bill.

the exaggerated blog piece basically said: everyones transactions are going to a criminal records investigation(face palm) and that the treasury can do anything on a whim(facepalm).

yet the bill:
is not criminally investigating all transactions. nor is the treasury allowed to do things on a whim.
the exchange needs to record keep(locally). as all MSB always have. but they only REPORT activities that flag up as being suspicious. as all MSB's always have
also the treasury still needs to consult courts, and other agencies. so not on a 'whim' nor 'unilaterally'

but hey.. because o-e-l-e-o can quote 4 people on twitter, it must be as o-e-l-e-o believes..
this is the same social games i detest the most. where people believe things because of social conversation groups. not because they done any actual research.
it happens alot. someone informs you in social media of an opinion you should have, and then you foolishly only search for people that agree with the opinion you have. and then use the group as your proof of opinion..

again the only big deal thing that has significant change is the 120day rule.

YOUR method of backing up your opinion is the same confirmation-bias  method flat-earters and covid conspiracy nuts do.. find 4 people that agree and use them as quotes, and then get buddies like doomad to come chiming in to add a few worthless boring insults.. very sad effort ob both of your chummy social games. if only you spent more time reading the bill and less time reading twitter blogs and friends opinions, you all might see beyond the social drama

Yeah yeah. This is all on me. Let's ignore the people like Jerry Brito (CEO Coin Center) and Jason Brett (former FDIC regulator) who are saying what I'm saying. Let's ignore Brian Armstrong (CEO Coinbase) who is saying what I'm saying. Let's ignore the actual sitting representatives who are saying what I'm saying, such as Tom Emmer - https://twitter.com/RepTomEmmer/status/1486384340238053377 - or Cynthia Lummis - https://twitter.com/SenLummis/status/1487077010052730889. Do you maybe want to jump in to the next House session via Zoom or Skype and let them know you and you alone have got it all figured out, and the entire US government and the rest of the bitcoin world are wrong.

There is always the possibility to get another candidate to oust him at the primaries.

Hopefully people are contacting their representatives to get this nonsense amended or voted against.

'alot of people on twitter'
well alot of people on twitter were retweeting to donate to a tonga disaster relief,.. but only 400 donated..

try not to use twitter as a view of the sentiment or view of fact
twitter is 1000x more of a troll box of exaggeration and  mis-information compared to this forum.
twitters whole pretence is to exaggerate the info to try getting people emotional enough to make a message go viral