Banks Are Finally Openly Fighting Bitcoin In Australia And USA

[Kprawn]

This just shows you how much control banks have over people... You do not have to worry about "red flags" with Bitcoin. You transfer any amount to anybody anywhere in the

world, when you want. This is what "full" control means... not this fake freedom given to you by the current financial systems. We have been so used to these "rules" that we

think it's normal. Why do we need someone to tell us what we can do with our money?  

[1714972457]

1714972457

[1714972457]

1714972457

[1714972457]

1714972457

[1714972457]

1714972457

[1714972457]

1714972457

[1714972457]

1714972457

[ahpku]

Why do we need someone to tell us what we can do with our money?  

We don't. Until we are robbed. Then we do.
Out of curiocity, how many times in your life were you denied a withdrawal by a bank due to excessive ammounts/KYC/AML? Because 0 for me, though won't lie, am less pure than the driven snow.

Sure, moving bitcoins is effortless, but spending those coins on non-trivial items (e.g. not internet gambling/overpriced DNM drugs) is not. That's why shit like BitPay (payment processors turning your BTC into fiat for the 'bitcoin accepting' merchants) & "bitcoin ATMs" & localbitcoin exists & reintroduces the same government regulations & snoopings, just at a different point.

[jonald_fyookball]

cointelegraph is a joke.  They shilled bigtime for scam coin "neucoin" and have no journalistic integrity.

[fuathan]

Banks want to control transactions because they need to control power. Bitcoin decentralized nature is not good for banks. Eventually they will hate or love(adopt) bitcoin.

[Zaun]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/116023/banks-are-finally-openly-fighting-bitcoin-in-australia-and-usa

It looks like we're there:

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you. Then you win.”

There is another saying too.
"If you can't win them, join them"

Let's see what the others banks will do.

[franky1]

Why do we need someone to tell us what we can do with our money?  

We don't. Until we are robbed. Then we do.
Out of curiocity, how many times in your life were you denied a withdrawal by a bank due to excessive ammounts/KYC/AML? Because 0 for me, though won't lie, am less pure than the driven snow.

Sure, moving bitcoins is effortless, but spending those coins on non-trivial items (e.g. not internet gambling/overpriced DNM drugs) is not. That's why shit like BitPay (payment processors turning your BTC into fiat for the 'bitcoin accepting' merchants) & "bitcoin ATMs" & localbitcoin exists & reintroduces the same government regulations & snoopings, just at a different point.

i use to have fiat in bank accounts. and i got hit with overdraft fee's and what not. now i dont hold any funds in there
i get paid in bitcoin and i use that bitcoin to buy food at a shop where the manager wants and hoards bitcoin.

ive yet to get my landlord to hoard bitcoin so sometimes i do temporarily have to accept the fact that fiat does end up being the end result of paying rent..

but it is possible to work and live mostly on bitcoin, and its getting easier and easier each year

[UserVVIP]

I really do not see the point in them doing this. it is useless for them.

[owm123]

Bitcoin is not anonymous, but pseudo-anonymous only. If banks and governments understood this, maybe they would not be against bitcoin.

do you just sit there hitting search on the forum looking for the term anonymous all day long to try promoting your monero altcoin in your footer.
how about try to make a more accurate point about pseudonymity that's not trying to coax people into your crappy altcoin

Did you even read the website?  Its about providing information to people, just like bitcoin.org. But according to you, bitcoin.org is also probably about misleading people and promoting other things when they say bitcoin is not anonymous on number of their pages, e.g.,

https://bitcoin.org/en/you-need-to-know
https://bitcoin.org/en/protect-your-privacy
https://bitcoin.org/en/faq#is-bitcoin-anonymous
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/features/privacy

[BellaBitBit]

This is not a surprise.  Anytime innovation arrives there are factions that fight to remain the top technology but nothing can stop an innovation such as Bitcoin. It is actually a good sign there is a struggle because it means they understand the significance.

[partysaurus]

the biggest reason i got into bitcoins to start with , so fed up with these fucking banks.

[johnyj]

In most of this cases, the money comes from a hacked/stolen account

[gentlemand]

Banks just want a quiet life so they can get on with laundering drug money. I would've thought their major beef with BTC is regulatory uncertainty and hassle from The Man rather than feeling ideologically threatened.

[ahpku]

Why do we need someone to tell us what we can do with our money?  

We don't. Until we are robbed. Then we do.
Out of curiocity, how many times in your life were you denied a withdrawal by a bank due to excessive ammounts/KYC/AML? Because 0 for me, though won't lie, am less pure than the driven snow.

Sure, moving bitcoins is effortless, but spending those coins on non-trivial items (e.g. not internet gambling/overpriced DNM drugs) is not. That's why shit like BitPay (payment processors turning your BTC into fiat for the 'bitcoin accepting' merchants) & "bitcoin ATMs" & localbitcoin exists & reintroduces the same government regulations & snoopings, just at a different point.

i use to have fiat in bank accounts. and i got hit with overdraft fee's and what not. now i dont hold any funds in there
i get paid in bitcoin and i use that bitcoin to buy food at a shop where the manager wants and hoards bitcoin.

ive yet to get my landlord to hoard bitcoin so sometimes i do temporarily have to accept the fact that fiat does end up being the end result of paying rent..

but it is possible to work and live mostly on bitcoin, and its getting easier and easier each year

Unless you're working under the table (not declaring your income/cheating on your taxes), pretty much impossible to live just on bitcoin, but that's nitpicking.

Bitcoin (in my opinion, if this needs to be said) shouldn't be treated as a sideshow curiosity. Sure, people stayed up for weeks on top of flagpoles. Did their pole-sitting bring about a revolution, exodus from conventional, outmoded house-living & mass-adoption of the pole-sitting lifestyle? I'd say no. Not many have turned to each other, gushing "Agnes, we've been so darn blind! Let's dump this idiotic house, and buy us a nice pole!"

Bitcoin's aim is not to limit you -- to the one grocery store near you that takes BTC, to the only house you can rent with BTC, etc. It's not a universal tool we need to force onto every problem. That sort of thing is only good for making bitcoiners look like fanatics, "Jersey Man Eats Only Alfalfa, Claims So Can You!"

[Blind Legs Parker]

Bitcoin is not anonymous, but pseudo-anonymous only. If banks and governments understood this, maybe they would not be against bitcoin.

I mean, I agree with franky1 that you're seriously starting to get on people's nerves by spamming this everywhere. But it's true that you have a point. Bitcoin is not fully anonymous. And I think it might be because of it that it's still not illegal now. Promoting a fully anonymous altcoin is extremely dangerous. Governments aren't as easy to cope with as banks are. A full-anonymous coin will just end up being made illegal, with full support from the masses.

Governments like transparency when it comes to money transfers. Without transparency, everyone can avoid taxes easily, and Governements don't like it when people can avoid taxes, thus, naturally, anything that brings more transparency will please Governments. I think the only reason that Government isn't taxing Bitcoiners now is because they want more people to start using the system before starting to lay down taxes on them. If they do so too early, it might just frighten away lots of potential users. Because I mean, most of us are holding bitcoins with a history and a smell. Cash doesn't have a smell, they say, but bitcoins sure do. I had to give my phone number to buy mine, for instance. And do I need to remember you that to buy a phone number you need to show your ID card? Governments can have access to such information.
In other words: anything that attacks Governments head on is bound to be made illegal. But Bitcoin is not illegal, and things don't seem to be moving in this direction either. There has to be a reason behind this, because Governments have already been provided with more than enough excuses to make bitcoin illegal, but still they haven't done so (and war against terrorism is one of the most obvious as well as populist amongst all these excuses). It has to mean that Bitcoin, in some way, isn't a threat to Governments. Now it is indeed a threat to Banks, and knowing the decision power that bank lobbies have over Government's policies it would be surprising that in the case where the Government itself simply didn't care about Bitcoin, no negative decision would be taken because of pressure coming from Banks. Thus my conclusion is that Governments actually like Bitcoin. They probably recognized a quality that they could use for themselves inside it, such as transparency.
What do you think of this?

Now there's something that I don't quite understand, given what I said, it's the policiy of the Taiwanese Government regarding Bitcoin. They spoke against it on several occasions, but yet retained a neutro-sceptical stance regarding it. Taiwan is one of the "less bitcoin tolerant countries" (but still, they tolerate it, you'll tell me). Could Taiwanese Government just have failed at understanding how Bitcoin could be useful to them? Or is it because of mafia lobbies? (Yes, the mafia has quite a bunch of decision power over political decisions in Taiwan). I mean, if you come here one day, one of the first things you'll notice is that apart from 7 eleven, no one is registered and almost every single business is illegal. You'd think that the Government would jump on the first occasion to claim more money from taxes that already exist but no one pays? You'd think they'd welcome bitcoin? But no, they don't seem to.

[BillyBobZorton]

It was obvious that something like this will happen, soon or later.
Bitcoin is much more simple to use, anonymous, no centralization etc. and more and more people using it.
Of course that banks can't ignore it any more but they already lost this fight in the long term.
They have no chance to win because people wants financial freedom and don't want to be controlled by the governments.
It's natural development and nothing can stop it.

Read Franky1 s comment, the biggest issue was going over 10,000 usd limit.

This was set up to prevent money laundring and other illegal activities and are there for a reason, not just to bully you when buying and selling bitcoin.

She should probably have started up a business or something (one person company), to prevent this stuff from happening.

Doesn't matter. What he said will happen. Governments will attack sooner or later en masses. BTC may be banned allover the world if it starts being a challenger against the status quo, so we need more decentralization and anonymity.

[gentlemand]

It's going to need to be able to interact with fiat for a long time to come. If bitcoin is made a pariah by conventional banking then its utility is massively reduced. There will continue to be holdouts in dark corners but for most it'll become useless.

[sgbett]

the issue that woman had was nothing bitcoin related, but standard AML rules that have been around for decades (yes before bitcoin even existed) due to her moving over $10,000.. which is a red flag

it doesnt matter if its a large facebook refund of $10,001 in facebook credits, if its $10,001 of chinese yuan, euro or rupee converted from western union. as soon as you hit that $10,000 flag.. your screwed.

domestic bank accounts have flags.. so if you are looking to transmit more than $10,000 in one shot, then pre warn your bank and explain that its not a drug deal but a wire transfer from a money licenced and authorized organization.

also pay attention to structuring even smaller transactions can get you flagged if you've not done anything like it before.

My CC company once flagged me for far less (blocked/suspended my account) just because I cleared the balance of about GBP4k. They said it was a 'risk review' but never told ma anything more about it. It got resolved eventually but it took 3 weeks several phone calls, and far more hassle than enjoyable.

[franky1]

also pay attention to structuring even smaller transactions can get you flagged if you've not done anything like it before.

My CC company once flagged me for far less (blocked/suspended my account) just because I cleared the balance of about GBP4k. They said it was a 'risk review' but never told ma anything more about it. It got resolved eventually but it took 3 weeks several phone calls, and far more hassle than enjoyable.

i know. in the UK there are multiple flags. some banks even have flags for amounts higher than your income being wire transferred out in one lump EG £1200
and for those on benefits some banks have been known to even question amounts under £500.

but the general rule of the wire transfer regulations in the UK is £10,000 which is where it creates the biggest headache for banks.. all of the smaller flags are not regulatory limits that cause banks headaches but more internal banks own choice and preferential flags to avoid fraud/theft/scam payouts. so it does not cause them headaches for these lower amount flags.. but the £10,000 flag does.
all flags are annoying to customers but its the £10,000 that is the headache for banks as its not their choice and its something they do need to enforce with a hard whip, and unavoidable unless you as a customer have consulted with a bank that they should expect these size payment in the near future, to pre-warn them

[biggus dickus]

the issue that woman had was nothing bitcoin related, but standard AML rules that have been around for decades (yes before bitcoin even existed) due to her moving over $10,000.. which is a red flag

it doesnt matter if its a large facebook refund of $10,001 in facebook credits, if its $10,001 of chinese yuan, euro or rupee converted from western union. as soon as you hit that $10,000 flag.. your screwed.

domestic bank accounts have flags.. so if you are looking to transmit more than $10,000 in one shot, then pre warn your bank and explain that its not a drug deal but a wire transfer from a money licenced and authorized organization.

also pay attention to structuring even smaller transactions can get you flagged if you've not done anything like it before.

My CC company once flagged me for far less (blocked/suspended my account) just because I cleared the balance of about GBP4k. They said it was a 'risk review' but never told ma anything more about it. It got resolved eventually but it took 3 weeks several phone calls, and far more hassle than enjoyable.

There is an upside to the bank's flags.

I like Bitcoin and both hold some and use it, but being responsible for securing Bitcoins would worry me if I was holding a million dollars worth. If it was in the bank and someone tried to force me to give it to them by beating me with a baseball bat the bank would stop any transfer over $10k and start asking questions.

With Bitcoin I would quickly be forced to hand over my million dollars. If I held a million dollars worth of Bitcoins and someone found out I would never feel safe holding them. I would only feel safe if nobody knew I had them. I'm all for Bitcoin, but that's one of its few drawbacks.

I recently read about a south American drugs baron nicknamed shorty who has been recaptured. His fortune is estimated to be half a billion dollars. That's roughly what Satoshi's worth. Would you feel safe walking around with half a billion dollars in your pocket if anyone found out you had it?

[lahm-44]

It was obvious that something like this will happen, soon or later.
Bitcoin is much more simple to use, anonymous, no centralization etc. and more and more people using it.
Of course that banks can't ignore it any more but they already lost this fight in the long term.
They have no chance to win because people wants financial freedom and don't want to be controlled by the governments.
It's natural development and nothing can stop it.