Bitcoin Forum

The use of crypto is limited to just people who are here to make quick cash. I think KYC and AML compliances by Fincen will give it more legitimacy and general people will move towards it and would use this as a payment method. Read more: https://shuftipro.com/blogs/kyc-aml-compliance-can-help-cryptocurrencies-earn-legitimacy/
What you suggest?

Actually, I'm not a supporter of KYC, but it seems that only this will help to make people's confidence in bitcoin!

Kyc can be a important move towards making bitcoin legal .
Through it bitcoin user will be secure and they didn't not have any fear of any (legal)  government issue.  It can be the legendary step. P

I suppose that's the positive aspect, but I find that this is maybe the point of view of the suits and ties. Bitcoin doesn't really (to me) need to earn the legitimisation of the state. It's already recognised by us who use it. Those states and central entities who don't recognise it do so at their own loss. I can see perfect sense and even benefits for regulations... Mt Gox made a lot of people lose money, and Japan thought that was the wake up call for them, and power to them if Bitcoin becomes normalised and is just another currency for them. But if regulations and KYC means that the way we're used to using Bitcoin comes under threat? I don't know how I feel about this.

Basically, you are waiting for a bunch of criminals (the governments) to increase Bitcoin's legitimacy? Good luck waiting.

I don't need the word of the government to know if something is useful and stimulating a free economy. If people somehow need the government to spoon-feed them with (flawed) etiquette, they can just as well get lost directly, because they clearly can't think and act on their own. This empty headed chicken mentality is exactly what makes goverments so powerful; they know they can do with people whatever they want, and they will swallow it like a bitch.

Tip; Don't ask/wait for approval or permission (from whatever entity) to use something that doesn't require any approval or permission to be used.

We cant deny the fact that regulation could really make some positive results when we do talk about investment matter but as the guy said above me when government already ties up our necks we do still end up like a dog where government do always have the control on what are the things that we gonna supposed to do. For some sector i consider some adoptation but on general sense it wont really be necessary since we can stand up on our own without the need of governments support or approval of something.

The number one accusation against bitcoin is that it is used by criminals and terrorist. Kyc and Anti-money laundering regulations will certainly clear this negative association. It is will  help make Bitcoin go mainstream

if indeed KYC and AML can be a solution of legitimacy for bitcoin in every country then I strongly agree with this rule as long as supported by related government for the security of our personal identity in order not to be misused by irresponsible person

Governments are powerful and they should be, not only for a single reason. My opinion is a bit contradictory. We can't go against the government for all the time in life. Yet we need to encourage them for taking steps towards legitimacy of Bitcoin and other virtual assets.
People who go against the government rules commit crime. Those people will be happy with a blurred impression of BTC who are involved in unethical and truly illegal  activities. But those governments are welcomed who accepts the decentralized model of currency.

But let’s first think. Where does the government get it’s power? Don’t the people give it’s power? Were it not for the people, the gov’t would not have any power and authority because this is given by its people. If the people did not appoint them, then would they have any power? No, of course not. Do not view the gov’t as some ultimately powerful entity. We have our rights and I believe the use of crypto is one of them. The use of crypto is not a crime unless declared so by your gov’t, so you shouldn’t have any fear and you should be free to continue using it.

What are you saying. How can KYC legitimate bitcoin? What general attitude does the KYC test have to the validity of bitcoin? Do you even know that KYC should only be conducted with respect to investors in order to avoid the possibility of laundering dirty money, financing terrorism, etc.? Do you think that bounty hunters launder dirty money on this forum, advertising ICO projects? But in fact we do not invest with such advertising of the means.

The only way the whole of KYC is going to be used to earn legitimacy is when its being coordinated by the legalised government regulatory agency responsible for that until that happened, its just some random people who felt they needed to justify their  continued stay in business and need to impress those who will guarantee that existence and that is why even platforms asking for KYCs didn't ask for uniform information despite the fact that they might be operating within the same jurisdiction and serving clients from the same jurisdiction.

Not sure about that since KYC is to trace investors and buyers, but if the project team members and adviser of the ICO project will provide KYC to organization where ICO Project is registered then it would be great!! It would be awesome!!

I do support it too because it would mean that people would have the impression that cryptocurrencies are not just another investment scheme but it is actually a currency that can be used for ease of transactions and we would have a leap forward for mass adoption as those who are skeptic about it would trust it since it is regulated.


Although we are pushing forward the concept that we are freeing ourselves from the control of the government, the truth is that we still need their approval so that we can move forward and more people trust cryptocurrencies which would possibly end up in mass adoption. They are powerful and if ever they decide to just ban cryptocurrency in the country then they can do so.

Some countries demand KYC and AML compliance for financial affairs, every time we deal with company or business relate to bank.
The surge in interest for bitcoin meant many cryptocurrency exchanges require customers to comply with it.
But it doesn't meant government will legitimate cryptocurrency as conventional means of payment, it just help government to control money flows and counter illegal transactions, at least it is a step towards positive acceptance.

Exactly my point. At the end of the day, we should make sure that anything that can be used by bad guys should be compliant or regulated enough to protect the people. In the end it is for the people I believe but do fill out that poll so you guys can get a better idea regarding how many people support this.

KYC and AML compliance in crypto market can certainly increase its adoption rate. However, it will be directly against the crypto market framework. Cryptos are not meant to be regulated by a central authority. If it happens, it won't have any difference from fiat money which is stringently regulated by the respective governments. I am having a mixed reaction on this matter because government's regulation is necessary to increase the reach of the cryptocurrency but on the other hand governments won't allow cryptos to be flowed into the system without KYC and AML compliance. So can't really conclude my argument here.

But yes, legitimacy is one factor that will help bitcoin to increase its reach and more people will be interested in the cryptocurrencies. So it will generally increase the cash flow within the system. Probably good for the long run!

The first thing that KFC and AML will do is building of confidence in the investors that there money is safe and to the new customers or those who are inspiring to join, it will legitimate the market in their sight but to existing investors, it won't lead to legitimacy because we know that is difficult to happen with the way cryptocurrency is structured.

If you really want cryptocurrencies to move forward then KYCs and AMLs are nothing, they will only compromise the feature of anonymity of this cryptocurrencies. This is the governments only trade off in ruling in favor for this cryptocurrencies which I think is better compared to completely banning cryptocurrencies because of the way how criminals are using it. Just by knowing all the people who are owning cryptocurrencies is a big step for fighting this illegal activities. Talking about price movements I think that in the long-term we will see that this will bring a positive effect on cryptocurrencies.

Not necessarily.

Regulation will help cryptocurrency businesses gain legitimacy, for sure. However, I don't think that forcing KYC onto users will help a lot regarding its legitimacy. It's attacking the users that are using the service, not trying to keep the integrity of the business or the coin itself in check.

It's going to restrict access to a lot of things. Crypto is supposed to be an anonymous currency, and when you have KYC/AML, especially over the top measures that we're seeing already (like asking where funds are sourced), it makes it extremely difficult to use the service and drive people away from it altogether.

I think that we're going to go down the path of forced KYC nonetheless on all regulated centralized bitcoin services, which may see decentralized versions pop up in response.

Regulations, if written correctly, can help cryptocurrencies earn legitimacy. There are still a lot of people who are convinced that they're a get rich scheme, so if regulations are somehow able to help protect money/people within the cryptospace, people would be more likely to open their minds and engage.

That being said, KYC and AML do nothing for the users themselves and have no direct effect on how they view crypto. They're mostly in place for businesses and governments to be able to prevent abuse and enforce rules -- which, in turn, may help cryptocurrencies earn legitimacy.

Yes, with kyc it will make the government easier to accept crypto, but when it happened its mean we are under regulation and our identity is known by others, it destroy the bitcoin feature of anonymity, but at one side we need the government approval to make bitcoin growth expanded, but if the regulation of kyc is implemented, I afraid a lot of investors will leave crypto

Not really, some ICO are requiring KYC from their consumer or customer since there project are often banned from a certain country and they don't like to be affected in the future so they make sure that every person is located on countries that allowed people to invest on crypto.

Well to tell you honestly there is not place for assets that are anonymous right now. The idea of anonymity will be a thing of the past for cryptocurrencies as the governments are aware of this features that is why they made kyc and aml in the first place. We cannot really push for unknown transactions in this world anymore it is making us look more suspicious then what we are used to. With crypto being anonymous the potential for illegal transactions like crime funding and money laundering will always be there.

https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

I think yes, it will help, because they are more protecting our tokens to hackers, and this is also their assurance that we do not enjoy them, it is often used on ICO's. so it's a big thing in the field of cryptocurrency.

The collection of confidential information about holders of crypto-currency, called the KYC check, should be granted only to state bodies or authorized bodies that have undergone special verification. Then it will be useful to people and the state, and crypto currency. However, the requirement to pass the KYC check by the ICO team, which themselves, as a rule, does not pass any verification and 60-80 percent themselves are potential scammers, I just get annoyed. And we are still discussing what will really be good to pass fraudsters our identification data and copies of our passports. First you need to put things in order here to exclude fraud in the ICO area, and only then to talk about the need to check KYC.

Basically as a consumer I really don't care for Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrencies to be recognized by our government as long as there is no word of prohibition I will freely use my cryptos in some of my transactions that needs to be paid in crypto. But putting myself in the shoes of producers I know that being recognized by the government as a totally legal way of paying something I will consider that as a green light for me to accept cryptocurrencies as payment in my business, legality is one of the concerns why big businesses are not accepting cryptos as a mode of payment.

There are no so called protection about hackers. They can breach anything if they wanted to be, they even attacks and defamed *.gov websites, what's more a trading exchange or a ICO project? So there's really the risk that your personal data will be exposed and exploited by them.

I agree that it can bring some air of legitimacy but it will not be the main reason for bitcoin to go mainstream. It boils down as how people used it, whether as currency (what we wanted) or store of value (as investment). So it really cuts both way, somewhat contradictory so for us, we might or might not followed the procedures but as long as we enjoy using bitcoin and crypto then who needs KYC/AML after all?

I don't think that legalty is the main obstacle, but rather a lack of understanding.

If you ask most stores if they are willing to accept Bitcoin as form of payment, they'll probably say that the volatility prevents them from doing so with how it is a serious concern. The lack of understanding comes down to the point where they don't know that there are payment gateways willing to take that risk away from them, and also that there is no need to deal with Bitcoin 'physically' if you don't want to.

By using a payment gateway as hedge, you in most cases aren't even subject to what the government thinks is right or wrong. You just receive every payment in fiat. That's how merchants in Russia are doing it to avoid government intervention and it seems to work extremely well for them.

not entirely true, because the monitoring room is still limited to something that is local, this also influences their readiness factor, if indeed it has become an official reference, I am sure they cannot stem many things. I do not really care about this, if there are indeed a number of legal businesses that require it, I will continue to follow them, and this will indeed be very large in conjunction with the potential of legitimacy, but it will not run efficiently overall.