https://blog.trezor.io/a-decision-on-aopp-789540c2930b
Topic: Trezor AOPP Integration - page 4. (Read 744 times)
What a shame that you accidentally lost a bunch of your paper wallets Loyce! You'll need to be more careful in future. Here's hoping you find them again in 10 or 20 years' time.
I don't think that's going to do much good. For the wealth tax for instance they can go back 5 years, and if funds are abroad they'll go back 12 years. With Bitcoin, I assume they'll argue funds aren't in the country. The tax fine can be up to 300% of the normal tax, plus of course interest.The best way to avoid taxes is moving to a more tax friendly place, but I'm no where near rich enough for that.
If I ever traded on a centralized exchange, any coins I withdrew to a KYC-linked address would be forwarded to a mixer within the same block.
That address is still linked to you. More precisely, to the person who withdrew the coins. And the same person then sent the coins to a mixer. You could mix your coins even if your address is verified using AOPP standards. I don't see it being anymore privacy-invasive than a centralized exchange who already knows the name of the person who is making a withdrawal.
It is absolutely crazy that the community as a whole is OK with this kind of insane privacy invasion.
I agree. Unfortunately, it will only get worse. If one country has started using this, more countries will do so in the future. The same goes for centralized exchanges. Whether we like it or not, that's where most of the crypto trading is done. The decentralized alternatives are unfortunately still not on par with centralized ones. Most people don't mind sharing their data for a better exchange rate, a bit of cashback or some similar offers and advantages. Since that's the way it is, that will be the direction this ecosystem will move towards. 
In a way I'm surprised taxes don't ask for this information yet. They want to know your total balance of everything, and specifics for each bank account, but they're not asking about Bitcoin addresses yet. That's probably because their system can't handle it, but at some point they'll no doubt be that intrusive. It's already a security risk having to disclose what you own, especially considering how many tax employees would be able to access this data.
What a shame that you accidentally lost a bunch of your paper wallets Loyce! You'll need to be more careful in future. Here's hoping you find them again in 10 or 20 years' time.I think they are not in a hurry because at any time they can link our addresses to us, as blockchain is immutable. A small privacy slip when making a transaction is forever in the blockchain and you cannot fix it.
For example, if you sent Binance some bitcoin 4 years ago, Binance can share this address with tax employees at anytime. And if you spend that balance with another address, that another one is linked as well.
In a way I'm surprised taxes don't ask for this information yet. They want to know your total balance of everything, and specifics for each bank account, but they're not asking about Bitcoin addresses yet. That's probably because their system can't handle it, but at some point they'll no doubt be that intrusive. It's already a security risk having to disclose what you own, especially considering how many tax employees would be able to access this data.
What a shame that you accidentally lost a bunch of your paper wallets Loyce! You'll need to be more careful in future. Here's hoping you find them again in 10 or 20 years' time. As Loyce has pointed out above, the Netherlands tried to implement such address verification nonsense.
In a way I'm surprised taxes don't ask for this information yet. They want to know your total balance of everything, and specifics for each bank account, but they're not asking about Bitcoin addresses yet. That's probably because their system can't handle it, but at some point they'll no doubt be that intrusive. It's already a security risk having to disclose what you own, especially considering how many tax employees would be able to access this data.Quote
I am disappointed Trezor aren't fighting this instead of implementing it.
Hense the kuddos to Bitonic, they fought this in court and won. Unlike many other companies, they don't like having to violate their customers' privacy.Quote
It is absolutely crazy that the community as a whole is OK with this kind of insane privacy invasion.
Not only the Bitcoin community, it's the same everywhere: barely anyone cares about privacy. It is absolutely crazy that the community as a whole is OK with this kind of insane privacy invasion.
I found a very interesting article about it in Bitcoin Magazine (probably the best news website about bitcoin)
Quote
A similar dynamic is in play when it comes to the AOPP. The protocol isn’t inherently bad as it simply seeks to facilitate the enforcement of wallet verifications measures in Switzerland by making an interoperable standard available to wallet developers to implement. But even though AOPP isn’t in and of itself negative, it legitimizes the practice of checking for address ownership, and implementing it opens up a precedent for having the government influence developments in the open source Bitcoin wallet space. Surveillance and control mechanisms always start small, and there is hardly a way to see ahead of one’s time and discover the true direction such requests could take.
Therefore, not implementing this standard is an act of sovereignty and responsibility as it protects users from future — and possibly worse — surveillance mechanisms being implemented as per the request of regulatory bodies.
Therefore, not implementing this standard is an act of sovereignty and responsibility as it protects users from future — and possibly worse — surveillance mechanisms being implemented as per the request of regulatory bodies.
This reminds me of the Cyberpunk Manifesto, where he clearly takes a stand against regulations on cryptography, which is what AOPP is all about.
Quote
Cypherpunks deplore regulations on cryptography, for encryption is fundamentally a private act. The act of encryption, in fact, removes information from the public realm. Even laws against cryptography reach only so far as a nation's border and the arm of its violence.
Cryptography will ineluctably spread over the whole globe, and with it the anonymous transactions systems that it makes possible.
https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/cypherpunk-manifesto.txtCryptography will ineluctably spread over the whole globe, and with it the anonymous transactions systems that it makes possible.
Thoughts ?
As Loyce has pointed out above, the Netherlands tried to implement such address verification nonsense. Instead of just rolling over and saying "Sure, let's sell out our users' privacy" as Trezor are doing here, the biggest exchange in the Netherlands - Bitonic - funded a lawsuits against the central bank and had the law overturned. This is what responsible companies which care about their users would do, and not just immediately implement this privacy invading nonsense, especially not in to a product which is designed specifically to give you control over your money and not play in to the hands of centralized exchanges or governments.It won't affect me in the slightest since I have never and will never use a centralized exchange, (especially not one which requires such address verification nonsense), but I am disappointed Trezor aren't fighting this instead of implementing it.
This is just a way to put a sticker on those addresses to be sure.
If I ever traded on a centralized exchange, any coins I withdrew to a KYC-linked address would be forwarded to a mixer within the same block.It is absolutely crazy that the community as a whole is OK with this kind of insane privacy invasion.
If the "AOPP integration" part it's just going to be an "optional feature" from Trezor's side, I don't see it as a bad thing...
I guess there is no other way than it being an optional feature because only Switzerland uses it for now. It's a successful way to deanonymize bitcoin users. But if you are using a centralized exchange in which you have already undergone KYC verification, your privacy is already screwed. Doing an additional address verification won't change much. Most of the coins getting withdrawn from exchanges are done so by the customers who transfer said coins to their own private wallets. So the exchange already knows where the money went. This is just a way to put a sticker on those addresses to be sure. 
Does anyone know if this is for all countries ?
In regards to the implementation of the FATF's Travel Rule, so far, that's not the case with most countries:- I can confirm that we [PH] already have such a thing in place, in one of our local wallets/exchanges: How does the Travel Rule affect external transfers?
- Thoughts ?If the "AOPP integration" part it's just going to be an "optional feature" from Trezor's side, I don't see it as a bad thing...
Quote
any financial intermediary dealing with crypto assets such as Bitcoin—is legally obliged to require proof of ownership of a customer's wallet address before withdrawals and deposits can be made.
Maybe LoyceV knows more about it? He is from Netherlands.See:
Bitonic destroys wallet-screenshots that were unduly required by its supervisor
DNB formally acknowledges complaints Bitonic and revokes wallet-verification requirement
Preliminary relief judge upholds Bitonic's objections and calls on DNB to review its requirement
Lawsuit Bitonic vs Dutch Central Bank < kuddos to those guys for fighting for our privacy!
(more on Bitonic News archive)
i found this
https://aopp.group/
Quote
Address Ownership Proof Protocol (AOPP)
In Switzerland and the Netherlands, a Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP)—any financial intermediary dealing with crypto assets such as Bitcoin—is legally obliged to require proof of ownership of a customer's wallet address before withdrawals and deposits can be made. AOPP is a simple and automated solution for providing proof of ownership of an external wallet's address.
In Switzerland and the Netherlands, a Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP)—any financial intermediary dealing with crypto assets such as Bitcoin—is legally obliged to require proof of ownership of a customer's wallet address before withdrawals and deposits can be made. AOPP is a simple and automated solution for providing proof of ownership of an external wallet's address.
As far as I understand, this is only about Switzerland and Netherlands for now. Maybe LoyceV knows more about it? He is from Netherlands.
I believe in future we will see a lot of those initiatives. They are trying to control and to give a name for each address with balance. But they can't. At least for now, we still have significant privacy
Governments will try to obligate exchanges to do so. About trezor, my advice is: buy a ledger pr just ignore their software and use electrum
Does anyone know if this is for all countries ? Thoughts ?
https://twitter.com/trezor/status/1486747863912796171?s=21
Article about it (showing only Switzerland here )- https://cvj.ch/en/focus/legal-and-compliance/trezor-integrates-aopp-to-simplify-withdrawals-to-non-custodial-wallets/
https://twitter.com/trezor/status/1486747863912796171?s=21
Article about it (showing only Switzerland here )- https://cvj.ch/en/focus/legal-and-compliance/trezor-integrates-aopp-to-simplify-withdrawals-to-non-custodial-wallets/
Jump to: