Topic: The EU wants transparency on Cryptocurrencies - page 6. (Read 627 times)

If this happens,  cryptocurrency will loss more investors. Many investors who invested in this digital currency are into it because of the features of no or less identity leakage. Many people respect and love their privacy,  which is the reason why most aren't interested in credit cards or trading cryptocurrency with exchanges because of KYC. If identify verification is mandated in every time one wants to spend his/her coin, then many people will abandon cryptocurrency.

I still hope that KYC will be used in good things and I know EU can’t control this market since exchanges are beyond their jurisdiction. Maybe EU wants to regulate cryptocurrency that will benefit them in the long run.

Who cares there are already existing exchanges which are not completely regulated and it clear that in the coming future as well there is no way there are going to regulate it , I'm not against the idea of regulations but making it same like banks is the worst idea they should try to make something unique which satisfies us as well as them

The European Union wants to make a smart move on the crypto market. This implementation is to secure the cryptocurrency for them to take hold of it. It's quite unclear how they are going to achieve this KYC on exchanges and for the wallet developers because most of these bodies operate outside their jurisdiction.

I see your point, but I strongly disagree. Even if we give up the idea of complete privacy and anonymity in cryptocurrencies and accept some level of state control to combat money laundering and tax evasion, crypocurrencies still provide useful features normal money can't and the decentralized blockchain can be a formidable competitor to normal payment systems.

At the end there needs to be a compromise. States will not allow the growth of the cryptocurrency market and it's ecosystem without having some form of control over it. And as long as that control is the minimal amount of control to prevent illegal activities, I for one am fine with that. This does not lead to the supply of cryptos being managed by central bank, and thus THAT aspect of Satoshis principle still remains in tact.

I have argued on another thread already that without allowing some form of state control / transparency bitcoin and cryptos will never become a major factor in the economy and will remain a fairly marginal toy. States can easily turn off any in- and out-bound flows to and from the crypto ecosystem. Ask yourself the simple question what would happen if it would be impossible to legally move fiat (say USD) into and out of the crypto markets?  Any holdings in crypto currency would be stuck (businesses would refuse to sell goods, as they can't turn cryptos into fiat either) and there would be never any new money flowing into crypto either. Scary? Well, all it takes is for the major national regulators to establish a few simple restrictions for financial institutions to allow any related transactions.

So rather than saying that with regulation bitcoin will die, I believe the opposite to be true, which taht without accepting some regulation, cryptocurrencies cannot survive.

This would happen, easily. Bittrex did it. Poloniex did it. Soon other exchanges did it.
If EU wants KYC details, they can get it only from the exchanges in EU. They won't be able to get the KYC details from overseas exchanges unless subpoenad. There's a loophole in everything. 

Definitely just for the taxes, the EU is tanking and would like to squeeze as much money from people. Somebody mentioned about hardware wallets, that would seem to be a harder one to regulate compared to exchanges. Even if they require retailers KYC, since these are physical objects, it's possible you can just say it got "stolen". They also might have a hard time tracking down money in the deep, basically those that were bought f2f and never passed through exchanges.


But of course they'll never say that. They'll never emphasize that remittance companies like Western Union and banks like HSBC has admitted to laundering money to who knows where and only got off with fines, basically slap on the wrist. Crypto is a good scapegoat since not everyone's familiar with it. Fear of the unknown.

We needed them to regulate cryptocurrency not make it as something equivalent to a local currency. If they are talking  more about identity verification in exchange for traders, then, it's not a new thing cause we already have it. But for identity verification for every bitcoin or any cryptocurrency spent, then it's unacceptable. It's like wanting  to control every investor and how they spend their coins.

They were commenting a tighter legislation rules from months.
This will only lead to more and better Decentralized Exchanges (DEX). I'm supporting it somehow. Because now I'm paying Capital Gain Tax anyway.

The EU wants to secure the operation of bitcoin and regulation of digital currency before they start investing as a unit. They want to protect their euro currency.

If that is the case then people will begin to avoid hardware wallets as well, when it's obvious that regulation is coming it seems that governments are not realizing how difficult it is going to be to go against bitcoin cryptocurrencies, does that mean they want that even desktop wallets require you to identify yourself before you are allowed to download the software? Because that is not going to happen.

At the beginning of your post to say correctly. It is contrary to all what was created by bitcoin. To allow the legalization of cryptocurrencies is a betrayal. I think you're wrong. Any regulation of the cryptocurrency from the state will lead to a decline in demand. Moreover, it can kill bitcoin. We can't let that happen.

your analysis may be true, because bitcoin will be good in the future, so indeed this is a breakthrough to improve the economy in EU, we can imagine if they go early and btc soaring, it really helps economy in that EU country

Definitely, governments are taking into account the widespread and resilience of cryptocurrencies, thus trying to take action to either halt their advance or actually legislate measures that will also help cryptocurrencies develop in the advanced world.

 That way, with the interference of governments, it could also become a way of payment one day, providing that they don't want to halt their advance, which is highly unlikely now, due to their nature and accomplishments, rendering too late to actually fight them.

What about Dash and Zcash they also offer superior privacy.

The whole thing about counteracting the anonymity of crypto
Goes against the findamentals of it but I understand the need
to counteract illegal activity.

Wouldnt mixing transactions trump any steps put in place to
Counteract illegal activity?

Well, they pretty much know that already.
Most exchanges licensed in the EU require AML and KYC and either way, the transfers of fiat are recorded already by the banks, so there is little you can hide there.



The term that is most important I think is custodian :

So Trezor isn't qualifying for this if we consider that they don't really hold control over your funds. They are more like strongbox sellers than a bank lending you a strongbox.
At least that would be the interpretation here.

From my point of view this one can be neglected as people should start learning not to keep their coins on a 3rd party wallet service or platform or whatever.

Bitcoin gave us the possibility of being a bank, why stuff the safe in a bank and on top of that give them the code and the keys?

The point is that Monero shouldn't be listed on any centralized exchange if we purely look at its main purpose, which is offering an extra layer of privacy. If you plan to buy Monero through whatever centralized exchange for that purpose, and think logically, you don't have any privacy already at that point, so it's pointless to even proceed buying Monero. If centralized exchanges at some point will decide to not list it at all, or to even remove it due to regulatory pressure, the value will definitely take a hit if people aren't switching to decentralized exchanges to keep trading it. It's probably the only altcoin I actually like for its features. Privacy is a very important aspect, but one that not many people appreciate at this stage, which is sad.

This is a two edged sword.

For one, any governmental control goes against the fundamental philosophy of bitcoin.

But on the other hand, this shows that politicians start taking cryptocurrencies seriously.

On the whole though, I think this is a good development. It requires some give and take, but if it's done properly, it will give users some protection similar to that found in regulated markets, while not giving up too much of the privacy and anonymity afforded by crypto currencies. Furthermore, such an at least "weakly" regulated market is essential for broad adoption by mainstream businesses, which in turn is essential for cryptocurrencies to reach the next growth segment.

Yup, if there were actual regulators, then the people would just end up creating different coins. It's the cat-mouse game here. I guess the only issue I could see coming out of this would be that the general population would need to be alerted of the creation of a new coin. People have to actually start supporting that new coin, and that could be a dangerous game. People in general hate change, and to swap their holdings to a new coin, which might not seem too much for you and I, would be a huge change for the average Joe. Regulations would definitely hurt the coins price, but I don't think it would mean the coin is done for.

The EU's idea of digital money purse is hard to really carry out. But we can understand this news. Now the European Union countries are paying more and more attention to digital currency. As we all know, the European Union's economy has been very bad in the past ten years. They may be eager to find new economic engines by using bitcoin as a breakthrough.