How did AML kill the decentralized market of Bitcoin?

[AmoreJaz]

Know Your Customer requirement doesn't ruin the decentralization of Bitcoin, nor does the AML policy. What destroys Bitcoin decentralization is the fact that centralized companies, i.e. companies like Binance, Coinbase, BlackRock, Fidelity and others destroy the decentralization. The fact that Trump (if he wins) plans to make the rest of the Bitcoins labeled as Made In The USA, kills the decentralization.
When centralized companies, that are managed and regulated by a certain group of people or by the governments, take their hands on a majority of coins, miners, nodes and so on, that process is what kills decentralization.

From a purely network decentralisation point of view, the KYC requirements indeed don't matter (unless they could get expanded on miners etc), but apart from network decentralisation, there's another crucial feature of Bitcoin  - censorship resistance.
If we sleep-walk into a reality where all Bitcoin transactions are only done by verified users using KYC-compliant exchanges/wallets with any peer-to-peer platforms or non-custodial wallets delegalised, that feature could get heavily crippled.

And I don't think Blackrock or alike would care too much about taking control over Bitcoin's network. It wouldn't make much sense for them to attempt that, unless we're talking about some larger plot involving governments and three-letter agencies.

Would really pose challenges if every bitcoin transaction will require certain kyc requirements. However, it will only happen in platforms where they are regulated under government protocols. But for others, people can still do their transactions anonymously, especially if it is p2p or wallet to wallet txs.

As this currency is going mainstream, we can't eradicate the fact that the government will have certain protocols to implement on this currency. We can treat this market as just any other business, which needs to comply with government protocols to establish their business. Hence, the implementation of AML/KYC can't be prevented.

[Synchronice]

And I don't think Blackrock or alike would care too much about taking control over Bitcoin's network. It wouldn't make much sense for them to attempt that, unless we're talking about some larger plot involving governments and three-letter agencies.

I don't say that it's directly BlackRock that wants to take control over Bitcoin's network but isn't that what the US and other governments want to do? Maybe through BlackRock and other companies and not directly?
I think, they want to control Bitcoin transactions. If Trump wins and manages to make the rest of the coins mined in the USA, then he will definitely set a censorship on Bitcoin transactions, i.e. will force miners to ignore transactions that he doesn't want to get confirmed.

[Koadharber]

And I don't think Blackrock or alike would care too much about taking control over Bitcoin's network. It wouldn't make much sense for them to attempt that, unless we're talking about some larger plot involving governments and three-letter agencies.

I don't say that it's directly BlackRock that wants to take control over Bitcoin's network but isn't that what the US and other governments want to do? Maybe through BlackRock and other companies and not directly?
I think, they want to control Bitcoin transactions. If Trump wins and manages to make the rest of the coins mined in the USA, then he will definitely set a censorship on Bitcoin transactions, i.e. will force miners to ignore transactions that he doesn't want to get confirmed.

One of the cons or negative thing about institutional funds are flowing into this market already is that they could possibly be able to start up with that kind of probability that it could really be that going into the path on trying out to centralized the market or something that do talks about having the potential of possible manipulation on which we know that these institutions or even into those billionaires who are really that trying out to accumulate coins as much as they could. This has used to be a decentralized thing but gradually it do really make out those kind of changes due to regulation and dealing up with those institutions that are trying out to accumulate coins as much as they could. We do know that it would really be that hard to stop on the time that they will really be having plans in terms of possible manipulation.
Due to the fact that transactions couldnt be easily be traced up or would be known then we do know on what are the possibilities that they will really be using it on other way.

[seoincorporation]

Can we still enjoy the decentralized nature of bitcoin?

Bitcoin is decentralized, and that will not change, but users are not Anonymous, and you are confused about the terms because the fact that it's decentralized doesn't mean it's not traceable. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin means that no one can make decisions alone about the coin and it' future, it means all the people need to agree if there will be a change. That's the decentralized factor of the coin, and if casinos and exchanges require a AML or a KYC, that doesn't affect the decentralization of the coin.

[Questat]

Can we still enjoy the decentralized nature of bitcoin?

Bitcoin is decentralized, and that will not change, but users are not Anonymous, and you are confused about the terms because the fact that it's decentralized doesn't mean it's not traceable. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin means that no one can make decisions alone about the coin and it' future, it means all the people need to agree if there will be a change. That's the decentralized factor of the coin, and if casinos and exchanges require a AML or a KYC, that doesn't affect the decentralization of the coin.

Of course, I get it, but the point of this thread, which I’ve already updated, is that we’re no longer enjoying the same privacy and freedom we had in the past. I’m sure you’ve been around longer than me, and if you remember, back in 2016, KYC wasn’t strictly enforced on exchanges and casinos. Now, it’s become a big issue, with some platforms even using it to scam people. Things have really changed, though Bitcoin’s system has stayed the same.

[dzungmobile]

Of course, I get it, but the point of this thread, which I’ve already updated, is that we’re no longer enjoying the same privacy and freedom we had in the past. I’m sure you’ve been around longer than me, and if you remember, back in 2016, KYC wasn’t strictly enforced on exchanges and casinos. Now, it’s become a big issue, with some platforms even using it to scam people. Things have really changed, though Bitcoin’s system has stayed the same.

Sometimes we have more privacy, and sometimes we have less privacy. I believe governments can change too and in many nations, citizens can use their votes for forcing governments to change. If governments don't change, they will be voted out by citizens.

It's big issue and barrier for Bitcoin and users in future but we see how Bitcoin Spot ETFs were approved in the USA. after more than 10 years of first application. Was Gensler and SEC proactively with their approvals and did they feel happy with their approvals?

We can see clearly in the announcement letter of Gensler, that he was not happy about that, but he was forced to approve Bitcoin Spot ETFs. Privacy is harder to achieve than Bitcoin Spot ETFs, but I don't think it is impossible to have in future.