Topic: Senator introduce"keep your coin act" to protect right to use self-hosted wallet (Read 247 times)

Technically you cannot avoid third party when Bitcoin is being used. You can broadcast the transactions to the network but then you would need miners to approve the transaction. So I am not sure what benefit this particular act will bring in. Also when it comes to self hosted wallet do you mean hardware wallets?

Criptocurrency users are already aware of the risks that comes with centralised exchanges. But a lot of traders are reluctant to move their funds from the exchange wallet to their personal wallet on a daily basis. The reason is exorbitant transaction fees. Unless Bitcoin network can fix their own flaws, no amount of legislation can fix the problems that comes with it.

That is a good message from the junior United States Senator, Senator Ted Budd (R-NC) which was born out of the many concerns felt after the FTX incident and is also considered a positive step forward even though we know that we users are fully responsible for the security of our own funds even when using self-hosted wallet.


As for Influence, yes, there will definitely be especially if the 'Keep Your Coins Act' is implemented because users prefer decentralized exchanges (DEX) to gain greater autonomy. For the second point, I can't say for sure that the answer will always vary if asked that way.

It's an interesting approach to how you can protect somebody from stealing your funds. Imagine people really understanding what to do with their coins and not relying too much on centralized exchanges for safekeeping. There are DEX to answer our needs, I think it just needs to be made easier so that the less savvy people would be able to utilize it as well.

For sure a lot of people were dismayed with what happened with FTX and it's just make sense that something like this would come up.

We don't need politics to be in the drivers seat at this point  especially that cryptocurrencies are about freedom and picking what's  best for you , besides what needs to be preached more is knowing what a custodial and non-custodial wallet is so that everyone picks what's best for them knowing the advantages and disadvantages of what is chosen.

If this was to pass, it could affect the operations of a Cex..the least I foresee happening is a multisig feature which will only happen when requesting a withdraw with can be completed by both exchange and user which means better security too .

As of the second question, I think DEXs wouldn't be popular as the lack the liquidity and to some extent could be limited in functionality when servicing many blockchain types.

1.This "keep your coins act" is just a proposal. There's no guarantee that will be accepted in the Congress and Senate.
2.Is there really a need for a specific law, in order to protect the cold wallets of all cryptocurrency users in the USA?
I think that cold wallets are a private property and the right of having private property is guaranteed in the constitution of the USA.
Maybe the USA is slowly turning into a fascist totalitarian state, that will try and confiscate everything it can from it's citizens.

This won't affect any CEX except for those exchange that based on that country. But actually involving the third party is like acting as a means of escrow which shows a kind of protect or additional security to anyone who is making huge transaction. What I also sight from this is that even the government officials are looking for a way to protect their investment and would go to any length to make sure their law stands in their favors to make sure their asset and investment remains untouchable.

Already there are people who loves using dex and maybe would increase the activity but it doesn't has effect on bitcoin since bitcoin per say does not being traded on decentralized exchange rather centralized exchange and through p2p.

No.  Who does not like holding on to their own Coins will not change unless out of their own will.  Centralized Exchanges will continue to be the trend due to convenience it brings.

Not really.  I think it is a bold step toward a better protection for Bitcoiners who are more traditional and prefer the NORMAL way of using Bitcoin.  Decentralized and with Self Custody.

This sounds more like a right than an embracement or strategy.  It sounds very well for now and this is how things should be.  It makes no sense otherwise.  Bitcoin is here to offer us a way to handle our own Coins the way we want.  Not just another way to work with Banks and Authorities at their own will.

Soon enough we will not even be allowed to keep cash in our pockets, that is how paranoid and controlling governments are becoming, so this is not only about bitcoin or even our wealth, governments want to know everything about you, period, and any attempt as small as it could be to retain some level of privacy will be seen with the utmost suspicion, and not only governments are promoting this, the general population is accepting it without any protest, as you should see the looks I get when people find out I do not have a Facebook account.

This will not affect CEX but honestly I believe that DEX should be taking the lead in crypto space but people are just too stupid and lazy all together, this senator is right but this is something that is already available but people still choose not to use non-custodial wallet to store their assets, the problem is the people, loads of people like the United Kingdom and the U.S still like storing their assets on Coinbase and Binance, they turned centralized exchange into wallet because they are used to storing money in the bank, and if one fail they still have this stupid thoughts that it's just like another bank failed, they choose a bad bank it seems.

Imagine someone who narrowly escape the FTX crash and still put his trust in another centralized exchange, he moved all his fund into Coinbase after FTX demise, some people don't care about the difference, they still want the centralized exchange because they work just like their centralized bank.

Not really. Still people would use CEX and as a means of 3rd party platform. But this bill or law will likes by many as those protected by the law will keep their coins and transactions to themselves. Isnt that what we are doing except that there is no legal paper rights? Well still this news are good in promotion of decentralized concept.

I don't know how it will turn out legislatively speaking, but it is an important right to defend. In the same way that states dream of abolishing cash, because with electronic payments they control everything and there is no privacy, we must defend the right to use cash and as for Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies to use self-hosted wallets, instead of having us all controlled with CEX, which is what they would like and what the legislations are moving towards.

This doesn't have anything to do with CEXs or DEXs.
Self-hosting is the standard way to use Bitcoin. Sure plenty of people use hosted wallets on exchanges to make things more convenient, but those things had to be built into the bitcoin ecosystem, bitcoin itself is all self-hosted naturally. CEXs vs DEXs doesn't have anything to do with this, if this became law it would just keeps things as they are.

The only reason I see for this sort of legislation is because some politicians who don't yet understand Bitcoin are too used to money in the banking world so they think custodied wallets are actually the norm and that self-hosted wallets are not the norm. It's those few politicians who think that there is something wrong with self-hosted wallets because they aren't educated up on Bitcoin and blockchain enough to understand that self-hosted is actually the natural/normal thing in this space. They are trying to fit blockchain concepts into banking concepts so they think keeping your money with companies is the way to do things. We see a few politicians occasionally bring up such silly ideas over the year due to their lack of any understanding of how blockchain works, like when they talk about only allowing custodied wallets, or only allowing exchanges/businesses to take money when they know who it is coming from, etc - just stuff that simply isn't at all how blockchain works. This legislation just is trying to point out in law that it is legal for people to use blockchain in the normal way it is intended to be used since some politicians still have an upside down view of how blockchain even works.

I think the goal here is to stop discrimination against coins that are held in self-custody, like if some service views them as suspicious and refuses to accept them. But it's unclear if this ever actually happened and if it did than how common it is. So it's probably just a preventive measure. But I doubt that such act will get passed, legislators have a lot more things to do than to bother regulating Bitcoin.

True, pretty much like the Black Rock turning their bitcoin attitude 180 degrees from naysayers to investors. Sometimes the unexpected happens, but this isn't going smooth for the democrats and this is democrats that really want to stop bitcoin.
Next year, Democrats may no longer be in power and their anti-bitcoin acts are receiving a strong resistance right now. Imagine what happens when they have a minority and the president is a Republican.
I'm speculating, but you can in a way predict if these acts will get a strong or mild resistance and all the "ban this ban that" acts usually get a strong one, like when they were trying to ban mining and states begun to add the right to mining as a local law.

I do not think that it is crazy.  This proposal is to protect the right of an individual to a non-custodial wallet.  We all know that the government oftentimes imposes a crazy rule that can deny an individual their own rights. 


Well, this proposal is to combat such actions.  Who knows when will the government get crazy and impose a ruling that cryptocurrency can only be stored in banks and can only do transaction with banks supervision for anti-money laundering purposes.


It would be surprising if it did though.

It's kind of crazy that they even have to introduce an act for someone to keep their own coins in non-custodial wallets. Like, isn't it any anyone's right to have self-custody of their funds whenever they want?

I think I even read somewhere that in some jurisdictions, they are trying to discourage people from using non-custodial wallets in favour of CEXs. Like, what the hell?

I don't think that the act aimed at self-hosted wallets is there to protect you from a miner that confirms your transaction, or a node operator that relays it.
Its there because (I guess) some idiots were asking Congress to ban self-custody so that people are forced to be completely transparent. This is aimed to destroy bitcoin in the US, because they know nobody will use it if people have to go through KYC before they can download a desktop bitcoin wallet like Electrum.

It's never going to pass though, so it's more of a display of their true intentions than a real threat.

This is a great idea if it will help bitcoins users be in charge of their own funds, I think this idea will help users be in control and use cez anytime the need arise for trading sake.
My other view is that, most person will not still use it, since they didn't make use of non custodial wallet when it is available, most person find it more comfortable to store their coins on exchange for easy switching from bitcoins to fiat.

No, this will not affect CEXs because those who will follow this act still have to keep some of their funds on CEXs to make trades or withdraw their funds into fiat, etc. They can't do that by keeping their funds in non-custodial wallets.

And I don't think people have to depend on such acts, either implemented by the president or not, because we know that if we own keys, we own the tokens, and if not, then we don't do have anything, and to know this, we don't need any senators to tell us. These are just publicity stunts to get some attraction from the new adopters (newbies) who are adopting BTC due to the bull run and the hype of ETFs.

No is my answer to your second question. Senators, governments, etc. hate DEXs and they love CEXs, and the meaning of this is not to embrace the use of DEXs; instead, the purpose of this act is to embrace the use of non-custodial wallets, those whose keys are under your ownership.

It is a draft law that needs to be approved and after it becomes effective so that we can talk about its effects or potential effects, but it is still a dead letter. Most politicians' interest in cryptocurrencies stems from the collapse of FTX, so I expect that any law will be passed that will protect their investments. Therefore, I expect that there will be further tightening of licenses for CEX or any exchange platform based in the United States.
I do not expect that there will be a law that encourages people to use wallets that give you full access to your transactions, and they may ask you to deposit them in banks.