The crypto compliance lie: Sacrificing privacy does not make us safer

[Charles-Tim]

From the tweets below, it is clear that the governments will try their best to compromise privacy, there could be a time when the governments will use custodial means of trading bitcoin against bitcoin users that prefers privacy in such a way the governments will not let any transaction to occur between custodial exchanges and bitcoin noncustodial wallets that are not verified. Now, many people do not even know there is anything called private key not to talk of seed phrase, these are the people that are getting common that are using bitcoin. The governments will make sure only people that abide to their laws and regulations will be able to transfer bitcoin, and this will only be through custodial services. Thereby, if the blockchain is regarded as the greychain, it will be like the blockchain is divided into two parts:

1. The lightchain (the part of blockchain that will support custodial services)
2. Darkchain (the part that will support noncustodial means)

Governments will be trying to compromise graychain (blockchain now) in a way they will divide it into two (lightchain and the darkchain), thereby making more people in the bitcoin world to be submissive to their laws and manipulations.

          

In the last month, we’ve seen the United States Federal Reserve come after BitMEX for failing to identify customers, crypto intelligence firm CipherTrace report that most crypto exchanges are not collecting enough user info, and the so-called “FinCEN Files” demonstrate that even large banks that collect and report vast troves of suspicious transactions are not doing enough to unbank the bad guys. Suffice to say, it’s a great time to be alive for compliance hardliners and a rough patch for privacy advocates, aside from a healthy recent boost in the price of Monero (XMR).

Stepping back and looking at the larger trend, many in the crypto community are now imagining a world with two “Bitcoin blockchains” — or perhaps, two distinct networks of various blockchains. The first is a blessed white blockchain, or “lightchain,” akin to a friendly neighborhood where everybody knows each other’s name; the other is a sinister “darkchain” full of drug traffickers, pimps and terrorists (as far as we know).

Privacy advocates fear that because Know Your Customer rules are being placed on exchanges that custody crypto and that banks and institutional wealth will make crypto mainstream via similar custodial solutions, only those who custody crypto with such institutions will be allowed onto the lovely lightchains. These chains will lie within the lofty ivory pillars of Wall Street and beneath the halls of wealth and power, while the vast unwashed masses who prefer to hold and control their own crypto will be forced into a crypto ghetto on the darkchain.

The lightchain-vs.-darkchain dichotomy is counterproductive, and a healthy graychain will produce more valuable crypto assets like Bitcoin.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/the-crypto-compliance-lie-sacrificing-privacy-does-not-make-us-safer
https://mobile.twitter.com/jchervinsky/status/1315758160687366155?s=20

[1714762253]

1714762253

[1714762253]

1714762253

[20kevin20]

God damn it, it's one of my deepest fears getting confirmed little by little. I keep saying it: it's exactly why they are suddenly starting to "support" cryptocurrencies! They found a way around the decentralization: the owner of a non-KYC-verified address? Suspect.

There will probably come a time when things will split up into two sides, as you have mentioned: the "law-abiding" users and the underground ones trying their best not to be caught trying to have digital intimacy. Unfortunately, we have too many crypto users that now don't care about their privacy anymore. If >5 years ago these news would've turned into a crypto revolt, today people don't care as long as their wallets grow. But they knew it, and they just know the more people join crypto blockchains, the more people they can easily monitor.

Guess there'll always be some ways around their laws as well, such as moving to crypto AND privacy friendly countries. Interesting times coming soon for sure.

[fiulpro]

But in the midst of all this , aren't our privacies already sacrificed now ? The government doesn't even allow us to use wallets without doing the KYC first which is connected to our bank accounts, our number, our alternative bank accounts if any then the passport of the individual which might easily track him down even if he tried opening an overseas account.
If wallets are not asking users for KYC those wallets are right away banned and then people have to look for a new alternative which is mostly SegWit wallet like : samourai but then again if they do want to sell their coins they would have to do this through a trusted exchange that will actually ask the users for KYC again !

We are already in this web.
Government is supporting it because they know that it's better to play like the friend and then see what's going on inside the wallets of millions of people and then implement Taxation to gain money.

It's a dark dark side my friend.... unfortunate

[AmoreJaz]

But in the midst of all this , aren't our privacies already sacrificed now ? The government doesn't even allow us to use wallets without doing the KYC first which is connected to our bank accounts, our number, our alternative bank accounts if any then the passport of the individual which might easily track him down even if he tried opening an overseas account.
If wallets are not asking users for KYC those wallets are right away banned and then people have to look for a new alternative which is mostly SegWit wallet like : samourai but then again if they do want to sell their coins they would have to do this through a trusted exchange that will actually ask the users for KYC again !

We are already in this web.
Government is supporting it because they know that it's better to play like the friend and then see what's going on inside the wallets of millions of people and then implement Taxation to gain money.

It's a dark dark side my friend.... unfortunate

even now, to convert our crypto to fiat, we need to go thru local exchanges or remittances that already asked our KYC docs. unless you are using p2p platforms that may not ask for kyc. but even the binance p2p, you need to submit kyc docs as you need to submit details of your bank account, etc and also to protect the users of that platform.
so actually, we are not very far from totally submitting ourselves to this kyc thing. it is not the case that we can use our crypto directly to the things or services that we want to get. most of the time, we still need to convert our crypto to USD or other fiat to actually use it!

[Smartprofit]

Yes that's right.

 I have high hopes for Monero.  Atomic swaps (XMR - BTC - XMR).  

https://icryptonode.com/blogs/news/bitcoin-to-monero-atomic-swaps-how-this-enables-private-bitcoin-transactions

Anonymity and privacy is a very difficult task in today's world.  Governments and corporations are doing everything to make the world transparent.  However, governments and corporations themselves do not want to be transparent.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The government doesn't even allow us to use wallets without doing the KYC first which is connected to our bank accounts, our number, our alternative bank accounts if any then the passport of the individual which might easily track him down even if he tried opening an overseas account.

If your "wallet" requires you to perform KYC then it is not a wallet at all - it is a third party custodial service. You should stop using it immediately and move your coins to a real wallet in which you control the private keys.

If wallets are not asking users for KYC those wallets are right away banned

What? Bitcoin Core is a wallet and does not require KYC. How could bitcoin even function if it was banned?

then again if they do want to sell their coins they would have to do this through a trusted exchange that will actually ask the users for KYC again !

There are dozens of ways to buy, sell, and use bitcoin without using centralized exchanges which enforce KYC. I have never used a centralized exchange and never completed KYC, and yet I would wager that I use bitcoin as a currency more often than 99% of this forum.

then see what's going on inside the wallets of millions of people and then implement Taxation to gain money.

I'm not convinced taxation is the reason behind this. They amount of tax to be claimed from the small number of users actively trading or spending bitcoin is relatively small. If governments wanted to increase tax revenues, they could get a much better return on their time by closing some of the loopholes that multinational companies and billionaires use to store all their wealth in tax havens. This is about mass surveillance and population control.

[Wexnident]

They might as well just straight up say that they refuse to acknowledge DeFi's, and would with all their power try to remove the Decentralization attribute of coins that has them, not for the sakes of the people, but for their own greedy sakes. Still, I doubt this could be fully realized, at least not in the next few years. Not to mention that there are ways to go around with it, but as you said, this basically splits us, users, to law-abiding ones, and non-abiding ones.

Still, I'd see more of a problem if the merchants were the ones who actually asked for KYC verified wallets, and not exchanges. There's still a few ways here and there to buy crypto outside of exchanges after all, but once merchants ask for verified wallets, the usage of cryptocurrency as currency plummets, or rather really just disappears, after all, its main usage is as a currency.

[o_e_l_e_o]

this basically splits us, users, to law-abiding ones, and non-abiding ones.

Correction: Giving in to their demands and compromising on your privacy is not a prerequisite for being considered "law abiding", and similarly, wanting to maintain your privacy does not automatically make you a criminal. I have never done anything illegal with my bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, and yet, I refuse to use centralized exchanges, refuse to complete KYC anywhere, refuse to allow third parties to dictate what I can and cannot do with my bitcoin, and refuse to allow governments to spy on my financial activities. None of that makes me a criminal.

[Fundamentals Of]

this basically splits us, users, to law-abiding ones, and non-abiding ones.

Correction: Giving in to their demands and compromising on your privacy is not a prerequisite for being considered "law abiding", and similarly, wanting to maintain your privacy does not automatically make you a criminal. I have never done anything illegal with my bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, and yet, I refuse to use centralized exchanges, refuse to complete KYC anywhere, refuse to allow third parties to dictate what I can and cannot do with my bitcoin, and refuse to allow governments to spy on my financial activities. None of that makes me a criminal.

Based on your definition, which is the proper one. Unfortunately, that is not the definition which guides the actions of governments. It seems, by default, anybody is criminal until proven otherwise. For instance, even if there is no reason to freeze your bank account, banks would freeze it all of a sudden until you provide all the documents that would prove that every penny is legally obtained. Sites would suddenly lock withdrawal for no apparent reason at all and force you to pass KYC. These uncalled drastic actions are proper for law violators only.

[o_e_l_e_o]

It seems, by default, anybody is criminal until proven otherwise.

I don't disagree, but if this is the direction your country's government is heading in, then it is probably time to seriously consider moving country.

For instance, even if there is no reason to freeze your bank account, banks would freeze it all of a sudden until you provide all the documents that would prove that every penny is legally obtained. Sites would suddenly lock withdrawal for no apparent reason at all and force you to pass KYC.

All the more reason to try to move away from fiat banking system as much as possible and use bitcoin instead. All the more reason to stop trusting third parties (be they fiat banks or crypto exchanges/services). All the more reason to hold your own keys at all times. All the more reason to trade peer-to-peer.

I don't deny that this is a real issue, but if everyone used bitcoin the way it was intended - without trusting third parties to hold coins on your behalf, or allowing third parties to decide to where and to whom you can and cannot send your coins - then it wouldn't be an issue at all. There would be no centralized exchanges to hand personal information and transaction histories over to the government, there would be no custodial wallets which could have their coins frozen or confiscated, there would be no centralized services which could be pursued by the government. They can't shut down open source software like Bitcoin Core and Bisq.

[DooMAD]

This was always the natural next step.  First they tried to dismiss it, ignore it, belittle it.  That didn't work.  Now they're doing this.

All you have to do is weigh up the pros and cons.  What can these custodial services offer you?  Is it vital to your needs?  If it's not, keep hold of your own coins.  Don't hand them over to people who want your life story and in return they'll tell you what you can and can't do with the wealth you've just given to them.  It should be a no-brainer.  
 

[Charles-Tim]

Based on your definition, which is the proper one. Unfortunately, that is not the definition which guides the actions of governments. It seems, by default, anybody is criminal until proven otherwise. For instance, even if there is no reason to freeze your bank account, banks would freeze it all of a sudden until you provide all the documents that would prove that every penny is legally obtained.

I think you need to read this:
 ’FinCEN Files” demonstrate that even large banks that collect and report vast troves of suspicious transactions are not doing enough to unbank the bad guys’.

Are all the money in the banks legal? Are all politicians means of generating fiats all legal? Are people working in bank not knowing cyber criminals and work with them? So, the governments are wrong, because among them are money launderers, and use power to make it successful. That is the truth in my opinion.

So, by default, it ought not to be like that. Anyone not seen involved in criminal activities are not criminals, the kyc used are biased. Governments are trying to comprmize privacy totally. I made a topic in 'politics and society' Governments compromising privacy, it is about COJ againsting end-to-end encryption, want social media and other sites to comply with their laws in a way they will be able to access peoples data, and still yet saying they are protecting privacy, is that right. Governments are only trying to make the world to lack privacy which many people care for.

And, let us know that with the so called kyc that some people got verified on one site or the other, let them become the victim of scammers. Governments are not using better approach at all, bitcoin have done everythingthing needed in a way the bloackhain is transparent, why not governments emmulating that.

[hatshepsut93]

In this light, the most important question is - will decentralized exchanges be resilient enough to survive the attack from governments, in attempt to make crypto users only use centralized exchanges? Because that would mean that they will have control over large part of crypto ecosystem. As I understand, decentralized exchanges rely on p2p banking transfers, and those things can be monitored any analyzed, potentially leading to blocking of crypto-related transactions.

Correction: Giving in to their demands and compromising on your privacy is not a prerequisite for being considered "law abiding", and similarly, wanting to maintain your privacy does not automatically make you a criminal. I have never done anything illegal with my bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, and yet, I refuse to use centralized exchanges, refuse to complete KYC anywhere, refuse to allow third parties to dictate what I can and cannot do with my bitcoin, and refuse to allow governments to spy on my financial activities. None of that makes me a criminal.

A criminal is simply someone who commits a crime. If governments will declare unregulated use of Bitcoin a crime, then many of us will be criminals. Right now it's not a crime in most jurisdictions, so we are not criminals. Being a criminal does not equate to being immoral, for example people who stand up to tyranny are often prosecuted as criminals by their governments.

[Upgrade00]

Governments always kick against anything they do not fully control, be it user data or money flow. Reason why tensions rise between nations due to alleged data theft, but those countries would have no problem spying on other countries.

Bitcoin presents a conundrum for certain governments as it cannot be directly regulated, this means money chain can go untracked, but the more bitcoiners interact with centralized services the more Bitcoin falls under the regulatory radar.
Nowadays more Bitcoin users willingly give up their privacy and anonymity, so there is very little economic implication for nations that adopt a heavy handed approach to controlling bitcoin, as users are already submitting themselves to custodial services. If more Bitcoin users would value their privacy nations would run the risk of becoming unwelcoming to the growing network and potentially being left behind as digital finance gains more adoption.

[Kelvinid]

I actually use a custodial wallet as we don't have a choice in our country for us to convert BTC to fiat money. It finds no safe for me as it requires KYC and they have control of it and having a 2FA is the only thing that helps me to add the security to my fund inside. I'm not sure if that is enough but ever since I don't encounter any troubles, wallet issue, or worse of hacking incidents that is why I'm also confident enough that this third party holds their promises to keep everything secured.

[avikz]

God damn it, it's one of my deepest fears getting confirmed little by little. I keep saying it: it's exactly why they are suddenly starting to "support" cryptocurrencies! They found a way around the decentralization: the owner of a non-KYC-verified address? Suspect.

There will probably come a time when things will split up into two sides, as you have mentioned: the "law-abiding" users and the underground ones trying their best not to be caught trying to have digital intimacy. Unfortunately, we have too many crypto users that now don't care about their privacy anymore. If >5 years ago these news would've turned into a crypto revolt, today people don't care as long as their wallets grow. But they knew it, and they just know the more people join crypto blockchains, the more people they can easily monitor.

Guess there'll always be some ways around their laws as well, such as moving to crypto AND privacy friendly countries. Interesting times coming soon for sure.

What's the issue with the law-abiding group of people? We indeed have a two groups of people here in this forum - one, who wish to comply with the KYC request and pay taxes and two, who wish to remain anonymous. But if we really want bitcoin to become a new world currency, regulation is the only way towards it. Bitcoin will never be able to become mainstream if we resist regulation, in that case, it will stay only as a parallel currency system like it is today! There will definitely be a few crypto-friendly countries, but majority of the world governments will become more hostile against it!

[davis196]

I have expected that the governments will try to make the crypto world as transparent as possible,but I don't expect this to happen soon.
The majority of crypto users,who are in the crypto markets just to make some profits will most likely abide by the rules and pay their taxes.
A minority of crypto libertarians,who sincerely hate paying taxes and giving their privacy away will jump into monero and use the dark non-custodial exchanged.
I agree that sacrificing privacy does not make us safer.Last year,there was a major data leak in my country's tax revenue agency and the personal data of millions of people was revealed online.
I simply don't trust my government,when it comes to keeping my personal data safe.

[witcher_sense]

But if we really want bitcoin to become a new world currency, regulation is the only way towards it. Bitcoin will never be able to become mainstream if we resist regulation, in that case, it will stay only as a parallel currency system like it is today! There will definitely be a few crypto-friendly countries, but majority of the world governments will become more hostile against it!

What kind of regulation do you mean? If you mean governments should have an ability to spy on every transaction you make, it would not make bitcoin mainstream. It will have the exact opposite effect. Never in the history of humanity could governments control and censor people's transactions, never could they identify participants of exchanges and it was an absolutely natural situation. The absence of surveillance didn't prevent gold coins from being considered mainstream. Governments can control your transactions only because they created a system of digital payments and forced you to use it, they have full control over it while you have nothing: no right to free speech, no right to privacy, no right to control your own money! It is ridiculous, but now we have bitcoin that fixes this injustice and is able to give us a way to opt out from that evil system of total surveillance.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I actually use a custodial wallet as we don't have a choice in our country for us to convert BTC to fiat money.

It sounds like you are using an exchange account to store your coins, which is terrible for both your privacy and security. Just because you haven't experienced any hacks, scams, frozen coins, etc., yet doesn't mean this will always be the case.

But if we really want bitcoin to become a new world currency, regulation is the only way towards it.

Why? Why do we need governments and banks to tell us how we can use our money? If that's what you want, then you don't need bitcoin and you don't need a blockchain. A centralized database and electronic fiat is more than adequate for a currency which is controlled and regulated by third parties. The whole point of bitcoin is to move away from this system.

It is ridiculous, but now we have bitcoin that fixes this injustice and is able to give us a way to opt out from that evil system of total surveillance.

Exactly. So why are people so keen to hand it over to governments to turn in to little more than tokenized fiat?

[Karartma1]

I remember when discussing bitcoin with a group of people after an event, one whom I discovered was a lawyer after I finished explaining my take on bitcoin said: "So, is this all you criminals do?" I avoided any debate as there was clearly nothing to say to somebody who was firmly believing in his opinions.
I see this is happening at a greater level now as bitcoin gets institutionalized : they want every bitcoin to be vetted and treated accordingly. As I said it many times already, we have excellent privacy tools at our disposal but they will keep on working only in the bitcoin realm. Don't expect to preserve your privacy when connecting your bitcoin to any of those regulated entities. We are at war, isn't it clear?

[witcher_sense]

Exactly. So why are people so keen to hand it over to governments to turn in to little more than tokenized fiat?

Maybe, it is their unwillingness to take on responsibility commands their minds and actions. People are scared of privacy because they think even talking about it makes them criminals. People are scared of self-custody of their funds because it implies responsibility and certain knowledge. People are scared of bitcoin because it is government control-resistant, anarchic in its sense, and, more importantly, it gives too much freedom to its users. People are scared of that freedom because it has been given to them without permission from governments. That freedom is uncertain (not yet regulated) and not approved by authorities. People dislike uncertainty and therefore strive to hand over their bitcoins to governments to "clear" them from the spirit of forbidden freedom. When they finally get rid of the burden of responsibility and freedom, they will be satisfied.

[DooMAD]

Also notice that it's only your privacy that's under threat.  These services aren't required to disclose to their customers how much BTC they're actually holding.  People don't seem to consider that if these companies are not holding sufficient funds to match that of their creditors, then there is a real danger of impropriety.  It's full transparency from the customer, but total secrecy from the custodian.  It's such a double standard.  

How do we know they're not operating fractional reserve schemes and merely giving us IOUs we might be unable to redeem later?  

Answer:  You don't.  

[witcher_sense]

Also notice that it's only your privacy that's under threat.  These services aren't required to disclose to their customers how much BTC they're actually holding.  People don't seem to consider that if these companies are not holding sufficient funds to match that of their creditors, then there is a real danger of impropriety.  It's full transparency from the customer, but total secrecy from the custodian.  It's such a double standard.  

How do we know they're not operating fractional reserve schemes and merely giving us IOUs we might be unable to redeem later?  

Answer:  You don't.  

Custodians that are running their business on fractional reserve scheme are inherently insolvent and consequently fraudulent. Should everyone presents claim on their share of reserves, such a custodian will bankrupt immediately. If custodians are obliged by law to satisfy everyone's claims, services should either avoid fractional reserves at all costs to stay in business or stop their business and declare bankrupt instantaneously. On the other hand, if they are not obliged by law to operate on "100% backed by bitcoin" model, it would mean governments support these fraudulent activities, insolvency and unbacked bitcoin IOU ( IOUTXOs if you like).

[o_e_l_e_o]

People are scared of privacy because they think even talking about it makes them criminals.

Which is exactly what the government and their associated three letter agencies want you to think. A scared populace is a compliant one. Someone who is fearful of being constantly watched adopts the mindset of being as meek, as unassuming, as compliant as possible. We must challenge this view everywhere we see it. Without privacy there is no freedom.

When they finally get rid of the burden of responsibility and freedom, they will be satisfied.

I don't disagree with that, but my message to those people is: Fuck you. If you don't care about your privacy then I'll tell you why you are wrong, but ultimately, it's your decision. If you don't care about what bitcoin was designed for and just want to speculate on the price, then go ahead. But you do not get to try to hand bitcoin over to the government/banks/regulators/other centralized third parties and ruin it for the rest of us just to make yourself feel better. If you don't want to use an unregulated currency, then the correct option is not to try to regulate it - the correct option is for you to go back to fiat.

How do we know they're not operating fractional reserve schemes and merely giving us IOUs we might be unable to redeem later?

Both Huobi and OKCoin were already found to running a fractional reserve and using customer deposits to invest in a variety of high risk products to make more profit for themselves, all without the knowledge or consent of their users.

[tbterryboy]

The government has always wanted to be in charge of everything. At first they despised cryptocurrencies and wanted to stop them, but later they realized that they won’t be able to stop it, as the rule says – if you can’t beat them, you join them, they are now trying penetrate into the cryptocurrency environment, soon they will try to place some kind of asunder that will frustrate people that are making use of crypto.

And it’s not just about that, when the government takes over in this space, that means you will have to be paying any fees they decide plus other things that they will try to introduce to ruin everything. So with this new law they are trying to setup, so if you buy crypto from centralized exchange you won’t be able to move it to your private wallet? Jokers.

[20kevin20]

What's the issue with the law-abiding group of people? We indeed have a two groups of people here in this forum - one, who wish to comply with the KYC request and pay taxes and two, who wish to remain anonymous. But if we really want bitcoin to become a new world currency, regulation is the only way towards it. Bitcoin will never be able to become mainstream if we resist regulation, in that case, it will stay only as a parallel currency system like it is today! There will definitely be a few crypto-friendly countries, but majority of the world governments will become more hostile against it!

If someone agrees to comply to these absurd laws, let them do so. The main issue is that, once they do, it becomes mandatory for all of us. The second group, which wishes to remain anonymous, is always going to be at a disadvantage because of the first. It's just like the first group is enforcing the second to comply.

I would not mind laws that are not intruding my private life, but unfortunately that's exactly what these laws do. I agree with the adoption of stuff that fights against crimes, but here in Romania we have something called presumption of innocence and I think I have the right to have it.

One of the issues I see with the mindset of the vast majority of people is that, as you have also mentioned in your post, most think that the law-abiding group pays taxes while the second doesn't. I pay my taxes and everything I do is legal, although I'm looking to be as anonymous and private as I can be. Yet, it's funny how people would get angry at me over my $60 Amazon order I supposedly haven't paid taxes for when there are trillions of USD moved around every year by politicians and high-tier personnel nobody cares about and nobody pays taxes for.

At this point, looking at how things evolve and that apparently even YouTube is moving towards identity verification, I think I'd honestly rather see Bitcoin as a parallel economy or an underground currency than submit to shitty laws and regulations. Let me be free, under my own cloak, living in a non-Orwellian state. The worst thing is, the "Bitcoin & crimes" excuse has been used so exhaustively that it honestly surprises me seeing how people don't realize the regulations are a plan to defeat BTC and everything Satoshi wanted to create!

Realistically, Bitcoin cannot be a world currency. The authorities know that, yet they push heavily for absurd laws that only lead to more control from their side and least decentralization and freedom on ours. Nobody will ever be able to convince me that a country leader will ever support a currency they cannot control. They're leaders because they want control and power.

Regulation is fine, but limited and non-intruding one. If wealthy owners have a lot of privileges we don't have access to and have lots of ways to get away with tax payments, I can't see why Bitcoin owners should be this limited. Ah, precious metal regulations are coming as well.. looks like I forgot for a moment that the average Joe should not be allowed to exit the wage slavery class, according to the current system we're living in.

You see, we're living in a world where we want fairness although the ones giving us orders are the least fair. As long as you don't have evidence that I'm doing anything illegal with my decentralized currency, what I do with my coins should be nobody's business.

[KIZILAGA]

 Bitcoin power comes from resistant to censorship..But transparent ledger makes it flawed..


"The fact that clients have to keep the entire history reduces the privacy benefit." Satoshi on Bitcoin.

[Lorence.xD]

The government has always wanted to be in charge of everything. At first they despised cryptocurrencies and wanted to stop them, but later they realized that they won’t be able to stop it, as the rule says – if you can’t beat them, you join them, they are now trying penetrate into the cryptocurrency environment, soon they will try to place some kind of asunder that will frustrate people that are making use of crypto.

What the government is doing is is justifiable in their side, they see that something threats their control then they try to neutralize it. It is one of the most basic functions of government, make the people line up so no chaos ensues. In this case though, they are in the wrong. Invasion of privacy no matter how small is still an invasion of privacy

And it’s not just about that, when the government takes over in this space, that means you will have to be paying any fees they decide plus other things that they will try to introduce to ruin everything. So with this new law they are trying to setup, so if you buy crypto from centralized exchange you won’t be able to move it to your private wallet? Jokers.

They see this as a potential cash cow so natural instincts kick in and they try to impose taxes or fees on transaction. There is nothing wrong about it though, taxes are the lifeblood of the nation, projects like roads, bridges, infrastructures, welfare programs and other social services are funded by these taxes, it may look scummy but this is necessary for the growth of the nation, to put it in a way, taxes are a necessary evil.

[Karartma1]

What's the issue with the law-abiding group of people? We indeed have a two groups of people here in this forum - one, who wish to comply with the KYC request and pay taxes and two, who wish to remain anonymous. But if we really want bitcoin to become a new world currency, regulation is the only way towards it. Bitcoin will never be able to become mainstream if we resist regulation, in that case, it will stay only as a parallel currency system like it is today! There will definitely be a few crypto-friendly countries, but majority of the world governments will become more hostile against it!

At this point, looking at how things evolve and that apparently even YouTube is moving towards identity verification, I think I'd honestly rather see Bitcoin as a parallel economy or an underground currency than submit to shitty laws and regulations. Let me be free, under my own cloak, living in a non-Orwellian state. The worst thing is, the "Bitcoin & crimes" excuse has been used so exhaustively that it honestly surprises me seeing how people don't realize the regulations are a plan to defeat BTC and everything Satoshi wanted to create!

At some point in the future expect KYC everywhere on the internet. Everywhere there will be walled gardens. Can't you see it already? Almost every site you visit wants to know almost anything about you. DIDs (digital identities) will be rolled out sooner than you think and all our activities online will be monitored and linked to whom we really are. Am I being too pessimistic? I don't think so, just look around.
We gave up freedom for comfort, that's the least we can get.

[carlisle1]

At some point in the future expect KYC everywhere on the internet. Everywhere there will be walled gardens. Can't you see it already? Almost every site you visit wants to know almost anything about you. DIDs (digital identities) will be rolled out sooner than you think and all our activities online will be monitored and linked to whom we really are. Am I being too pessimistic? I don't think so, just look around.
We gave up freedom for comfort, that's the least we can get.

Exactly what is happening now,Almost in each site we need to download or Enter there must be a KYC and you may not visited the entire site without Filling the form.

I don't know if this is totally legal but i find this abusive because KYC must be required if we need to take something in return from their site but for inquiries or something we have just to read?KYC must not be implemented.

Bitcoin power comes from resistant to censorship..But transparent ledger makes it flawed..


"The fact that clients have to keep the entire history reduces the privacy benefit." Satoshi on Bitcoin.

+1 on this part.

But Still  am for full privacy not unless it requires taxation since i don't want to evade rules.

[o_e_l_e_o]

There is nothing wrong about it though, taxes are the lifeblood of the nation, projects like roads, bridges, infrastructures, welfare programs and other social services are funded by these taxes

Or, in the case of the US, our taxes fund bombing civilians and buying lambos for health insurance middlemen.

Almost every site you visit wants to know almost anything about you.

What websites are you visiting? I cant remember the last time I used a website which wanted to know more than an email address (which of course would have been a disposable email).

DIDs (digital identities) will be rolled out sooner than you think and all our activities online will be monitored and linked to whom we really are.

All the more reason to fight back and challenge opinions which think government oversight of bitcoin is a good thing.

[20kevin20]

Am I being too pessimistic? I don't think so, just look around.
We gave up freedom for comfort, that's the least we can get.

You're being realistic. It's the unfortunate truth people do not want to hear and acknowledge. It's sometimes easier to accept and live in a false reality, where you're being told what to think rather than thinking on your own.

What websites are you visiting? I cant remember the last time I used a website which wanted to know more than an email address (which of course would have been a disposable email).

@Karartma1 is probably talking about websites collecting your fingerprint & digital behavior and scrapping as much data as possible.

[Karartma1]

Am I being too pessimistic? I don't think so, just look around.
We gave up freedom for comfort, that's the least we can get.

You're being realistic. It's the unfortunate truth people do not want to hear and acknowledge. It's sometimes easier to accept and live in a false reality, where you're being told what to think rather than thinking on your own.

What websites are you visiting? I cant remember the last time I used a website which wanted to know more than an email address (which of course would have been a disposable email).

@Karartma1 is probably talking about websites collecting your fingerprint & digital behavior and scrapping as much data as possible.

Yes, I am talking about basically every internet site that farms, collects, shares and analyses whatever a poor user can not even understand.
They go click after click not knowing that every action they do is monitored (https://www.hotjar.com/ anyone?), they leave unique fingerprints as they switch from one shop to the other (and then they ask why did I get that camera ad straight after sending an email to a photographer friend?) I could go on forever.
@ o_e_l_e_o I believe we are old-fashioned users, we know how to circumvent and avoid being tracked, tagged, scanned and so on.
But the majority is made of people who will gladly sell their privacy to keep on being on soma on the internet (brave new world inspired me on this last one).

[BIN-BIN]

This will be a sell out of the freedom we enjoy I'm the crypto space which is being free from third party involvement and also being free to be private in our financial dealings. If the government succeede in putting into place laws to control the cryptocurrency space it will be a total fail out of it original content.

[Carlton Banks]

It is ridiculous, but now we have bitcoin that fixes this injustice and is able to give us a way to opt out from that evil system of total surveillance.

Exactly. So why are people so keen to hand it over to governments to turn in to little more than tokenized fiat?

they are entitled do howsoever they choose, but such a thing will be not Bitcoin (as you say)

it amounts to riding the momentum of what Bitcoin truly does without wanting to use it. There are many such users (here on the forum for instance), I would be quite happy to see their involvement reduced in such a way. They aren't cut out for this (and are often quite proud of it)

[o_e_l_e_o]

it amounts to riding the momentum of what Bitcoin truly does without wanting to use it. There are many such users (here on the forum for instance), I would be quite happy to see their involvement reduced in such a way. They aren't cut out for this (and are often quite proud of it)

I, obviously, would like more people to actually use bitcoin for what it was intended - a currency - rather than just buying some on an exchange, holding it there, and waiting for the price "to moon" (God, I hate that phrase). Having said that, as much as I encourage people to learn about bitcoin, to hold their own bitcoin, to use and spend bitcoin, I am never going to seek to limit or prevent people who are only here to speculate. Such is the beauty of bitcoin - you can use it how you want to.

However, I draw the line at when people like this want to force me to use bitcoin how they want me to. "Regulation is good for bitcoin!" Is it though? Or is it good for people who want to buy, hold, and sell, on a single platform for the sole reason of increasing the amount of fiat they have, without ever actually using, spending, or even understanding bitcoin.

[Ucy]

I wonder what they think of people who withdraw money from banks for self-custody, or people who prefer to self custody their gold or other assets... dark fiat/gold users? Well, you only hear strange things like this on the internet and this "modern world". I don't think it will work. Will only work on people who accept them and live in their controlled system/world.
 I wonder if they think through things like this before publication.

[Charles-Tim]

I wonder what they think of people who withdraw money from banks for self-custody, or people who prefer to self custody their gold or other assets... dark fiat/gold users? Well, you only hear strange things like this on the internet and this "modern world". I don't think it will work. Will only work on people who accept them and live in their controlled system/world.
 I wonder if they think through things like this before publication.

Governments do not like people to have privacy, but they do say they want people to have privacy. It was not surprising when US COJ are making moves and progressing in compromising end-to-end encryption, they said it will be in a way peoples data can be accessed only during certain conditions with certain reasons, that peoples privacy will still be protected. Is there anything that can protect privacy than end-to-end encryption? I do not think so. When there could be self custody of fiats, the governments will only still try their best to compromise privacy of bitcoin users.

[o_e_l_e_o]

they said it will be in a way peoples data can be accessed only during certain conditions with certain reasons, that peoples privacy will still be protected.

An obvious lie. History has shown us that whenever a government or administration in pretty much any country in the world gives themselves the power to decrypt, intercept, or otherwise spy on their citizens' communications, regardless of all the talks about "only in specific cases" and "catching terrorists", such power is used for mass surveillance of the population and makes little or often zero contribution to effective law enforcement or preventing terrorist attacks.

When there could be self custody of fiats, the governments will only still try their best to compromise privacy of bitcoin users.

Self custody of large amounts of fiat is difficult and risky as there is no effective way to back it up against theft, damage, or loss as there is with bitcoin. It's also inherently costly, as the fiat you hold constantly devalues, and if you aren't investing it to earn interest which at least matches inflation, then you are constantly losing money. Bitcoin self custody on the other hand is much safer, and generally speaking, the value of what you are holding is going to increase rather than decrease.

[Gotumoot]

So what's the use of having our own wallet if we would also need to have  a KYC for it?
Why would we even choose to use hardware wallets if it would all comes down to that point?
Some of us choose to have hardware wallet because it is our own key our own coin and we don't need to surrender our own information or register any details about ourself.