According to the statement, this isn't the first time the MFSA has said they don't regulate Binance. They are apparently "reiterating" it, although I can't say I remember that. Something tells me that EU regulators are questioning the MFSA in regards to AMLD5 requirements as they relate to Binance. Malta is either washing their hands of the situation, or Binance wasn't being entirely truthful about "moving" to Malta in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Wait a second. If someone can pause it, why is it part of defi? That sounds ironic to me. I would appreciate if someone could explain to me how is it decentralized. "Non-custodial" might be a better description. The protocol is obviously at least partially centralized since it depends on bZx's centralized infrastructure. This distinction applies to most or perhaps even all "DeFi" and "DEX" platforms. Maybe it was poorly designed, I myself has a very little understanding though, but as I have said in some of my post about this whole new Defi protocol, for me BTC is the only Decentralized Finance that is very much secure.
With complexity comes risk. Part of Bitcoin's strength is its simplicity: scripts cannot loop or recurse and there is no notion of "state." This is also extremely limiting from the perspective of coding smart contracts. Ethereum allows for much greater contracting functionality while also increasing the risk of losses due to vulnerabilities and exploits. |
|
|
|
Keep in mind, this is not a real Forbes article. It's part of their "contributor" network and comes with a disclaimer: Opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own. As stompix pointed out, it's just a clickbait title. Not only is this small research project about the US Dollar's reserve currency status -- not Bitcoin -- but if you look at the listing, this is the only mention of either "bitcoin" or "cryptocurrency": Many cryptocurrency enthusiasts predict that either a global cryptocurrency or a national digital currency could undermine the U.S. dollar. That doesn't imply anything about what the US government thinks, just cryptocurrency enthusiasts. |
|
|
|
Tinfoil hats on, what if that "group", who might only actually be an "individual", wants seperate proposals only because it sets each for another scenario for contention. OR, what if someone wants Schnorr+Taproot blocked like how Jihan Wu wanted Segwit blocked because it disables an exploit/covert-ASIC-boost? Conspiracy theories aside, it would already be prudent to prepare for that possibility: Right now I don't think the current amount of engineering interest in Bitcoin is particularly healthy. Many long time contributors, including myself, have essentially stopped contributing for a variety of reasons (including uncertainty around political disruption of deploying even fairly boring new consensus changes, concern that too much bitcoin hashpower is controlled by bitcoin adversarial parties who would attempt to block protocol improvements, etc. on top of more generic factors).
There is also Pieter Wuille's typically conservative opinion that consensus changes should be difficult and/or take a long time to implement: I really don't care when things activate, or end up in use. Changes like this should be hard. |
|
|
|
I just bought 3000 XTZ on Coinbase and I'm wondering what's the best way to cash out to FIAT when the time comes to sell in the future?
(I live in europe, so I use Bitstamp to buy Bitcoin. Transfered 1 BTC to Coinbase and converted it to XTZ. They took $130 for that conversion, by the way.)
So what's the best alternative here to get the lowest fees/spread margin.
1. Convert XTZ to BTC. Withdraw BTC from Coinbase to Bitstamp. Sell BTC on Bitstamp and withdraw EUR to bank account (SEPA transfer).
2. Sell XTZ to EUR on Coinbase and withdraw using SEPA transfer.
3. Withdraw XTZ to another exchange with lower XTZ/BTC conversion fee/spread margin. Then withdraw BTC to Bitstamp.
You should cut Coinbase out entirely next time. If you transferred the 1 BTC to Binance instead, you would have paid only 0.001 BTC (0.1%) in fees to convert to XTZ: https://www.binance.com/en/trade/XTZ_BTCI would do the same thing on the other side of the trade. You could probably also save considerably on fees by cashing out bitcoins on Binance Jersey or another lower fee exchange instead of Bitstamp. Converting bitcoins to EUR costs 0.1% and EUR withdrawals are free: https://www.binance.je/fees.html |
|
|
|
It's a little alarming that they would really go that far just to ask for bitcoin. It's not really about Bitcoin per se. On a fundamental level, they are just trying to extort money. Extortionists have engaged in countless similar schemes intent on extorting cash, like this one. Cases like this just prove the point that bitcoins are increasingly seen as real money now. |
|
|
|
@squatter. Agreed. However, if the department of justice wins this case, it appears that they can refer to any mixer as a money transmitting and money laundering business.
According to FinCEN regulations released last May, the book is already closed on the money transmission question. Similar to exchanges, FinCEN registration (at a minimum) is technically required to do business with US customers. Money laundering charges are different. They require facts that prove a conspiracy to launder money. Advertising your mixer as a money laundry service and directly partnering with illicit marketplaces probably qualifies. Advertising your mixer as a privacy/fungibility tool probably doesn't. |
|
|
|
I'd like to know which is better to use (OpenDime or hardware wallet) for day-to-day transactions? I've been using a hardware wallet for a long time now, but the "OpenDime" seems to be quite an attractive option for storing Bitcoin safely without breaking the bank. OpenDimes and similar devices are most useful as bearer instruments -- literally passed around as cash, without transacting on the blockchain at all. If you want to transact over the blockchain, you need to break the device to sweep the private key. So, hardware wallets serve a very different purpose. Apples and oranges. I would also caution against using OpenDimes for large amounts or long term storage, since their design makes it impossible to securely back up the private key. |
|
|
|
This technology would be very valuable to whoever creates it, and its value would decrease if it were to be known to exist. We can't think only in terms of profit-based incentives. Some adversaries -- like nation states or a consortium thereof -- could permanently destroy faith in Bitcoin by releasing this sort of quantum computer in the wild. That may be incentive enough. Yeah first person to be able to crack keys 🔑 in a reasonable time will not want to do so in a blatant way.
Just a piece here or there.
You're thinking like a thief, not an adversary who wants to destroy Bitcoin. We should plan for both scenarios. |
|
|
|
If not via Quantam computers then maybe in a different way but will accessing private keys eventually happen?
Imagine checking your wallet one day just to discover the balance is zero, most probably because the private key has been cracked by a supercomputer of sorts.
Here's a relevant paper that speculates about when ECDSA will be broken: Quantum attacks on Bitcoin, and how to protect against themThe elliptic curve signature scheme used by Bitcoin is much more at risk and could be completely broken by a quantum computer as early as 2027, by the most optimistic estimates. Wasabi Wallet creator nopara73 believes 2022–23 is closer to the mark: For Bulletproofs, what matters is the Shor RSA2048 line, which is predicted to be broken in 2022–23. In fact, ECC is more vulnerable than RSA in a post-quantum world, so our discrete logarithm assumption may be broken even sooner. |
|
|
|
That interpretation (that "mixing is a crime") is misleading. Let's unpack what the DOJ actually said. Helix was linked to and associated with “Grams,” a Darknet search engine also run by Harmon. Harmon advertised Helix to customers on the Darknet as a way to conceal transactions from law enforcement. Like the Bestmixer.io case, the operator advertised his service specifically as a money laundering service. He also partnered directly with at least one darknet marketplace, which creates a conspiracy to launder money: Helix partnered with the Darknet market AlphaBay to provide bitcoin laundering services for AlphaBay customers. These elements don't exist for many other mixers, although the unlicensed money transmission charges could apply. The operator living and operating from the US made it infinitely easier for the DOJ to investigate and arrest him. |
|
|
|
That's nice to hear, but one positive anecdotal experience doesn't adequately speak to their quality control process, or the robustness of the other thousands that have been produced. I love the idea of Opendimes. I just wish there was a way to securely back up the keys. Even the manufacturer tells people not to use it for long term storage or large amounts, which basically says it all. At this stage, it's a novelty. |
|
|
|
My suspicion is that they are talking about implementing the FATF travel rule with its $1,000 reporting thresholds. I was previously under the impression that Congressional legislation was required, but now I'm not so sure. I also don't think the US government will be the only one. The FATF expects member states to implement these standards by June. |
|
|
|
The indictment refers to a direct partnership between Helix and AlphaBay, and possibly others as well. That probably covers the conspiracy to launder money charge. If I'm not mistaken, the other two charges for unlicensed money transmission establishes the first time a mixer has been targeted under FinCEN's 2019 guidance. You've got to love that retroactive enforcement!  |
|
|
|
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told Congress on Wednesday that the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is set to release new requirements related to cryptocurrencies. I put my foot in my mouth on that one. I honestly thought things would be quiet at FinCEN, at least until the next administration came into office. Mnuchin is being vague, but if I had to guess, he's referring to the implementation of the FATF travel rule. I forgot that the FATF's soft deadline for implementation was June 2020. |
|
|
|
Federal prosecutors say Harmon’s operation, called Helix, partnered with the online underground marketplace AlphaBay to provide money laundering for customers who accessed the marketplace through the darknet, which is not accessible through internet browsers used by most of the public. He is alleged to have run a mixing service called “Helix” that worked in conjunction with AlphaBay – one of the leading so-called “darknet marketplaces” accessible only via Tor browser...Helix also worked with a handful of other marketplaces, the indictment said. The feds seem to be alluding to direct relationships between Harmon, AlphaBay, and other darknet marketplaces. I wonder if (and to what extent) that plays a role here. The narrative they are painting is reminiscent of the case against Charlie Shrem. Running a mixer from inside the United States is probably never a good idea, but my interpretation is that their case is stronger than that. AlphaBay was shut down almost 3 years ago. The fact that this indictment was unsealed just a few days ago indicates the insanely long timelines US agencies work on. They spend years building these cases.  |
|
|
|
Everyday people lose access to their wallets, send Bitcoins to wrong addresses. It results in Bitcoins being lost forever. In the meantime, there is no way to prevent it.
So, let’s suppose that Bitcoin would exist forever. It means that at some point there won’t be any coin left in the network…
I know there are other implications/discussions about Bitcoin supply. But I’d like to limit this topic to this concern (Bitcoins lost).
Is the 21M BTC supply promise realistic?
I don't think your premise makes sense. Other Bitcoin users who haven't lost their bitcoins have a strong financial incentive against diluting the money supply. As a matter of fact, the supply cap is probably considered the most sacred of all Bitcoin consensus rules. Now that bitcoins are so valuable, we can also assume they are being lost at a significantly lower rate than years ago. I don't expect every bitcoin to be lost; not even close. So, I doubt this scenario will ever come to pass. |
|
|
|
Andrew Yang was not pro-bitcoin. He was experienced on cryptocurrency but not very liberal. His proposal was to make regulation clear and universal across the U.S. so enterprises would be more likely to invest. I would argue that clarity, especially about the tax code, would benefit us all. The way the IRS operates is to be as vague as possible -- for example, about pre-2018 like-kind exchanges or FBAR filing requirements -- then retroactively punish people for not knowing any better. Also, Andrew Yang's framework for cryptocurrency regulation did include this: Work with the sponsors of the Token Taxonomy Act and Wyoming legislators to promote the above, largely modeled after their work. That speaks volumes. The bills/laws he's referring to are really beneficial for taxpayers, consumers, VASPs, and token issuers -- which is also why I don't think we'll see federal legislation built around them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
