I decided to make a separate topic to talk about how crypto companies defend their interests These links are very important. The SEC recently requested documentation about Ethereum from Consensys and other companies. The SEC wants to recognize Ethereum as a security. Further "The SEC accuses the MetaMask wallet of acting as an unlicensed broker-dealer, violating securities laws. A broker-dealer is a financial entity that conducts securities transactions on behalf of clients but can also trade for itself. It acts as a broker or agent when executing orders for clients; it acts as a dealer or principal when trading for its account." https://www.coinlive.com/news/sudden-development-u-s-sec-accuses-metamask-of-operating-without-aAnd here is the result: Consensys files a lawsuit against SEC https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.389154/gov.uscourts.txnd.389154.1.0.pdfThe essence of the claim "1.Ethereum is still not recognized as a security, which means that any actions of the SEC have no legal basis, and the commission exceeds its powers. 2. Ethereum is NOT a security, Consensys does not engage in securities trafficking, the SEC is acting in violation of the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution" Oshurko Ksenia (C) lawyer I would love to see the SEC get shamed by losing in court.
|
|
|
Doubt it is true but if it is... Forget planning a 100k party, we will need to plan a 1 mill party.
|
|
|
Every country justifies war for geopolitical power. And every country has a dirty past. We should improve ourselves and our own countries instead of pointing fingers at others.
|
|
|
So what happens when those services become illegal? They all go into the black market, where they ultimately scam their own customers. My take: not knowing which site is secure will stop users from using them. That's a bonus on top of banning the ones that didn't scam. Sorry, but your take is wrong. If you apply that logic to something else, for example the illegal drug market, you will notice that a prohibition does not scare people away from using drugs. And because it is unregulated due to it's illegal nature, the dealers put shady and unknown chemicals into their product to make it even stronger (deadlier). The end result is still : anyone who wants to obtain drugs can do so. But a prohibition creates more unintentional deaths. Sure, it is the customer's fault for using it, but that does not mean they deserve to suffer/die for their mistake. That is not a bonus. That is shitty governing. Same with Mixers: they cannot be effectively banned. So banning the white market services is a counterproductive practice which will not have the intended effect of dampening mixing services. Only making it more possible for the bad ones to scam more people. I do not understand the mixxer issue anyway. If I wanted to anonymize and launder my money, I would use FIAT. You, like governments, mix (pun intended) the word "anonymize" and "launder". If I give you a $100 bill, and you give me another one in return, we've both anonymized the money (as long as neither of us talks about it). But if you have $10 million criminal money, exchanging it for another pile of $10 million isn't going to help you spend it. You'll need a car wash in Albuquerque for that. Sure, laundering large amounts of fiat is harder than smaller amounts, but as you stated yourself, it's not an impossible task. You don't even need to be Heisenberg to do it. Bitcoin is less anonymous than Fiat and much harder to launder due to it being a literal public ledger. And you would still need to provide an explanation to how you were able to afford your new Ferrari. That rings true for both cryptocurrency as well as fiat.
|
|
|
This is the direct result of the irresponsible and immoral government that decided mixing services should be considered illegal, despite not having the logical nor legal justification to do so.
So what happens when those services become illegal? They all go into the black market, where they ultimately scam their own customers. Just the same as the illegal, unregulated drug markets do to their customers, on the Darkweb. Does the government expect us to pretend that decentralized services do not exist? They cannot be taken down because of their decentralized nature.
You would think that the regulators understand by now, that getting rid of decentralized mixing services is as impossible as banning a plant. All they achieve by trying is creating more scammers.
I do not understand the mixxer issue anyway. If I wanted to anonymize and launder my money, I would use FIAT.
|
|
|
https://imgur.com/a/mStftPgHey guys. I was looking for some opinions based on this scan result from Malwarebytes. Is this anything to be worried about? I know that these programs like NHM and Minerstat show up as viruses sometimes. Apparently they can steal hash rate. I dont mine on this pc anymore so there's no reason to have these anymore. There is a thing such as false positives, especially with cryptocurrency apps. (Monero GUI wallet gives false positives, for example) but nobody cannot tell you with 100% certainty whether this is false or not. You should always keep your important stuff on an air-gapped device that has no connection to the internet.
|
|
|
Someone needs to repeat what Satoshi Nakamoto did with Bitcoin, only this time with a decentralised exchange or with samourai wallet like Bitcoin wallet.
They should do it in a way it can't be tampered ever again, just like Bitcoin, and they should become nameless, unknown and walk away just like Nakamoto walked away.
I know its not easy but by now we should have this done already, instead, both old and upcoming developers are running after money since crypto space is the new gold rush, no one wants to make real sacrifice like Nakamoto did.
This is the reason why Bitcoin is different from all other crypto coins out there, no one is ready to make sacrifices without wanting something back, without their names be heard and them available to take the credits, of cos, the centralized entities will crawl in. Shame.
People are too greedy. Centralized is more profitable to an individual because they can control the profit going into their pocket. A decentralized system would mean they have no control over it.
|
|
|
Centralized elements will always remain attack vectors. Unless it is 100% decentralized, it should be considered 100% centralized. Too bad, they had the right idea but went about it all wrong.
Good thing the wallet itself is decentralized at least. I bet the government would love to steal users funds under the pretext of enforcing some bs law.
There is a reason why Monero and Bitcoin founders are anonymous. Now we see why.
|
|
|
Same BS! they do at car auctions, owners and a couple of their mates bid on their own cars and pump up the price.... but hey let's continue with the fake narrative, and pretend that this BS! is really genuine and real. 🤡
I agree that many such auctions are premeditated FOMO scams, but the giant red text is annoying. Smaller works too.
|
|
|
I've not bought paper in a while, if it were only priced in dollars, so about $1,000,000.00 I just would have thought inflation was just bad. But 16BTC seems a bit much for a bit of paper and some writing on it. Well, if people buy NFT's, they will buy paper with scribbles on it. Still not as bad as buying a Pizza for 10.000 BTC, if you ask me.
|
|
|
Reports were talking about a maximum sentence of 18 months with no appeal, a year and a half in prison and he would walk free after admitting to violating US money laundering laws and paying fines. Prosecutors may try to increase this further to put more pressure on CZ, but in the end it seems that he will be imprisoned.
I feel like pleading guilty was his big mistake. There was no strong case against him in the first place. They probably pressured CZ into a guilty plea just to make an example of him.
|
|
|
Most people will probably call gambling a bad hobby. Nonetheless, it is a hobby.
But then again anything can be considered a hobby, so giving gambling that easily attainable title does not really give it legitimacy as a hobby.
Instead of a hobby, I would say it is just meaningless entertainment. And you cannot really call entertainment a hobby. It's just an exciting distraction that is sometimes needed for that extra dopamine buzz.
|
|
|
Why should it ever be about CZ going in jail.... nonsense
I also find this a bit absurd, but apparently it happens... as it was with SBF... or retaliation and manipulation by Binance... anyway, we will never really know. CZ does not deserve to go to jail for something that would have been possible without a centralized exchange like Binance anyway. The regulations are not enforceable as they are currently. At least not for cryptocurrency.
|
|
|
do you not know that the blockchain is served as a public ledger? Which means, in most cases, without mixers or any other interference, there's absolutely no guarantee for privacy? The sentence on quote from my post (which isn't part of this particular point) has a correlation with these; without a robust procurement for "anonymity/privacy", Bitcoin isn't entirely "fungible"!
By itself, alone? No. The blockchain is not private. It obviously needs to be public. But you are removing "mixers or any other interference" out of the equation. They are an intrinsic part of the Bitcoin ecosystem and everything connected to it through decentralized, non-custodial, open source methods. So yes, Bitcoin is technically only fungible because of what is built on top but it has the intrinsic 'methods' to be made fungible in the first place. Therefore it is intrinsically fungible.
|
|
|
And in that case, the police would knock your door... you'd have some explaining to do. For once more, that's a privacy problem, not a fungibility problem. The fact that I'd be directly tied with ISIS doesn't make the coins less valuable than the rest. If Bitcoin's original plan was total privacy, what's the essence of the blockchain?
I think you're both confusing privacy with anonymity. Bitcoin was never anonymous and it cannot stop the government from snooping on you through centralized means. (Although you could maintain anonymity as well as privacy, if you really wanted to.)
|
|
|
I agree that "tainted" Bitcoin is nonsense.
Since decentralized swaps, mixers etc. are possible for Bitcoin, it is technically impossible to filter out "tainted" coins.
If I use a decentralized atomic swap to trade my untraceable Monero for somebody's "tainted" Bitcoin, then how would the simple act of owning that Bitcoin make it legal for some third party to harass me? Even if the last owner did something illegal with that Bitcoin, that connection is severed the moment I become the new owner.
Any business that supports withholding a users funds over such unlawful reasoning such as: 'the user supposedly owns tainted coins' is a criminal business and should be avoided like the plague.
you can filter out tainted coins Ok. I swap my mixxed Bitcoin for Monero, send that Monero between wallets and swap that Monero back for a mixxed Bitcoin. Explain how you would justify or even filter out a "tainted" Bitcoin in this situation. The fact that you cannot tear up a 1 dollar bill and reconstitute it with the parts of a different dollar bill is what makes it non-fungible. The same cannot be said for 1 Bitcoin.
|
|
|
Good morning, WO!
Another day, another Dollar Bitcoin!
|
|
|
|