Topic: The PATRIOT Act comes to cryptocurrency - page 4. (Read 2102 times)

Any further nonsense from franky1 will be deleted. Please keep this on-topic.

which will give more value to the BTC you actually own.

Actually owning your own bitcoin won't be allowed

If you want no traces left in the fiat system, then cash in person is the best way to do it, yes. I've done this for years. It works well.

the share holders just buy and sell shares into and out of fiat. without ever touching bitcoin

The Bitcoin ETF will work just like IOU because the institution and the government never like decentralization.

But can the IRS be trusted that it won't share sensitive information with its fellow government agencies?

are we then limited to the option of transacting face to face and on cold cash basis?

Yeah its good to do peer to peer transaction if there's a lot of people using crypto on where are but if there's few people using it then we don't have a choice but to engage with those Kyc compliant platforms. Its hard situation to get track but we can't do anything if the only option we have is to engage with those KYC platforms.

Because peer-to-peer transactions which involve the likes of PayPal, bank transfers, and the rest of online payment options are almost pointless because they always ask for personal information.

I would encourage people, as I have always done, do trade exclusively peer to peer and to never complete KYC anywhere, so there are no third parties which can track all your bitcoin and share that information with anyone they like.

People must be know if Bitcoin ETF is an IOU, where they not hold the real coins and trust the institutions to hold their coins. I think it's not a problem as long as people fine with that, this what freedom to choose is where you can choose to trust your coins with institutions or buy a real coins and hold it in your own wallet.

I would encourage people, as I have always done, do trade exclusively peer to peer and to never complete KYC anywhere, so there are no third parties which can track all your bitcoin and share that information with anyone they like.

Everything I've seen come out of the EU in relation to bitcoin has been just as bad/stupid/misguided/idiotic as what our government in the US spits out. This kind of mass surveillance of bitcoin will only spread if we don't fight to put a stop to it.

~snip~
A much easier option than that in the short term is just to close all your KYCed accounts and use bitcoin peer to peer as it was intended in the first place. Long term I would say leaving the US is a good plan for a whole host of reasons, given the mass surveillance machine the US government has turned in to.

I don't think so. They will simply ignore any AI generated content, and all it does is water down genuine comments and complaints.

Dear Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department,

I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed regulations outlined in the PDF document titled "Gross Proceeds and Basis Reporting by Brokers and Determination of Amount Realized and Basis for Digital Asset Transactions." Specifically, I would like to address the topics of privacy and poorly defined terms.

Firstly, I am deeply concerned about the privacy and safety implications of allowing multiple third parties to have access to my sensitive financial data and social security number. The proposed regulations would require brokers, including digital asset trading platforms, digital asset payment processors, and certain digital asset hosted wallets, to file information returns and furnish payee statements on dispositions of digital assets. This would potentially expose my personal information to numerous entities, which raises significant privacy and security risks.

Furthermore, I find the definitions of certain terms in the proposed regulations to be poorly defined. For instance, terms such as "platform," "software," and "ledger" are left undefined, leaving room for multiple interpretations. Additionally, the definitions of terms like "wallet" and "validator" do not accurately describe their technical meanings, leading to potential confusion and inconsistent application of the regulations.

I believe it is crucial for regulations of this nature to provide clear and precise definitions to ensure consistency and understanding among all stakeholders. Vague and loosely defined terms can lead to misinterpretation and hinder compliance with the regulations.

In conclusion, I urge you to reconsider the implications on privacy and security that may arise from these proposed regulations. Additionally, I strongly recommend providing clearly defined terms to avoid confusion and promote consistent interpretation and application.

Thank you for considering my concerns. I trust that you will take these issues into account when finalizing the regulations.

Sincerely,

I think it's a really cool idea and we should try to find a way to do it for this act too.

I'm curious now, will you, then, encourage that people don't declare their Bitcoin holdings?

The strange thing is that Europe took the lead in this before the United States, which is now lagging behind.

A much easier option than that in the short term is just to close all your KYCed accounts and use bitcoin peer to peer as it was intended in the first place. Long term I would say leaving the US is a good plan for a whole host of reasons, given the mass surveillance machine the US government has turned in to.

https://freedom.tech/patriot-act-comes-to-cryptocurrency/

A fantastic article authored by Seth For Privacy (https://nitter.cz/sethforprivacy), who is the Head of Strategy & Marketing for Foundation Devices, known for their Passport hardware wallet.

As I've mentioned in another thread, and as Seth explains in this article, this newest piece of legislation is an outright attack on bitcoin. It is clear the US government want the only way to use bitcoin to be through fully KYCed centralized exchanges. They are trying their hardest to absorb bitcoin in to the existing fiat system and surveillance state, and destroy the very thing that bitcoin is.

What can you do about it? Get your coins off of any centralized exchange and in to your own wallet. Close your KYCed accounts and refuse to ever complete KYC again. Use privacy tools. Anonymize your coins. Refuse to use any service or product which treats bitcoin as non-fungible and discriminates against or censors certain coins. Bitcoin was not made to become an off-shoot of the fiat system, to be another tool by which the government can can surveil, censor, and control. And if you happen to live in the US, start contacting your representatives about this draconian piece of legislation.

https://bitcoiner.guide/nokyconly/
https://kycnot.me/

---

Spam will be deleted.

Comments on the proposal are now open, and remain so until January 22nd: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/23/2023-23449/proposal-of-special-measure-regarding-convertible-virtual-currency-mixing-as-a-class-of-transactions#

Sounds like "Monero above all", when it comes to privacy.

Monero has a marketcap of $2.89 billion and the 24th (as of today) on the lists of coins with the higher marketcap.

Is leaving the US a possible option?

I guess they're doing this so that they can tax everyone who is hodling Bitcoin and that's the worst thing they can do with Bitcoiners.

I downloaded monero (not the full blockchain), out of curiousity. I used it through coin exchange in order to get rid of some UTXOs. My question remains: why is monero not very widespread? I would argue, according to all the comments and posts I have seen, that monero is a "good" coin.

If we search, we will find that some of the mixing service providers accused in the above list are present in this forum, and according to the page --->  https://bitcointalk.org/privacy.php,

This is the first government request/inquiry I've received related to Ulbricht's case. I have received a few other inquiries for other cases.

According to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, no provider or user of an interactive computer service will be regarded as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.