Mr. Mnuchin plans to regulate non-custodial wallets.

[HeRetiK]

how about encrypting your traffic as an alternative? or are you paranoid about VPN operators too?

This forum, in general,  is a gathering of paranoid people including myself. Sure traffic from all my devices including mobiles is encrypted but as they say "better safe than sorry". The fewer devices that can potentially be identified the better. Or you think opposite?

Friendly reminder that e.g. Apple is bypassing VPNs to verify the authenticity of the applications you are running on your -- or rather, their -- machines.

It's a security feature tho so nothing to worry about ;p

[witcher_sense]

This forum, in general,  is a gathering of paranoid people including myself. Sure traffic from all my devices including mobiles is encrypted but as they say "better safe than sorry". The fewer devices that can potentially be identified the better. Or you think opposite?

I think such regulation doesn't make any sense since each mobile device would be considered to be a potential tool for transacting in the bitcoin network. I mean, if you don't have a mobile bitcoin wallet installed, it is still possible to broadcast a signed transaction via additional tools and intermediaries. Mesh networks, as an example. So, in the future, you would potentially be forced to report everything that can be used to facilitate transactions in the bitcoin network. You would have to report your mobile devices, your personal computers, your hard drives: any means on which text information could be written, even paper should be reported to regulators in such case because it is usually used for the creation of paper wallets.

[zasad@]

and they're still just rumors at this point.

Nevertheless everyone should be prepared. I have already deleted all wallets from my mobiles. I think this is the weakest point in the stronghold which I have   started to build as the eavesdropping software installed on the cell operators end is likely capable to identify the presence of crypto wallets on my end.

how about encrypting your traffic as an alternative? or are you paranoid about VPN operators too?

i get where you're coming from though. i already avoid mobile wallets because i fly a lot. when i use them, it's just as a throwaway. in fact, i'm trying to get in the habit of only traveling with factory reset devices. they don't need probable cause to search you, and i'd rather not have customs wondering how many figures are in my bitcoin wallet...

This forum, in general,  is a gathering of paranoid people including myself. Sure traffic from all my devices including mobiles is encrypted but as they say "better safe than sorry". The fewer devices that can potentially be identified the better. Or you think opposite?

The main thing is to distinguish between 2 things: then privacy and protection of transmitted information.
If you are talking about protecting transmitted information through the use of VPN, this is good, but if we talk about privacy, then your operator sees at what time you transmitted encrypted information and from what place. And knowing this data, you can find out which VPN service you used and get the necessary data.

[zasad@]

and they're still just rumors at this point.

Nevertheless everyone should be prepared. I have already deleted all wallets from my mobiles. I think this is the weakest point in the stronghold which I have   started to build as the eavesdropping software installed on the cell operators end is likely capable to identify the presence of crypto wallets on my end.

how about encrypting your traffic as an alternative? or are you paranoid about VPN operators too?

i get where you're coming from though. i already avoid mobile wallets because i fly a lot. when i use them, it's just as a throwaway. in fact, i'm trying to get in the habit of only traveling with factory reset devices. they don't need probable cause to search you, and i'd rather not have customs wondering how many figures are in my bitcoin wallet...

This forum, in general,  is a gathering of paranoid people including myself. Sure traffic from all my devices including mobiles is encrypted but as they say "better safe than sorry". The fewer devices that can potentially be identified the better. Or you think opposite?

The main thing is to distinguish between 2 things: then privacy and protection of transmitted information.
If you are talking about protecting transmitted information through the use of VPN, this is good, but if we talk about privacy, then your operator sees at what time you transmitted encrypted information and from what place. And knowing this data, you can find out which VPN service you used and get the necessary data.

Sorry, but you move into realm of phantasy. I don't think there is someone in the world at this moment who could extract any piece of info from stream of bytes  which is AES256 protected  and tangled  by XOR with salt as well .  Time stamping gives no clue what is behind  such stream.  VPN provider will not help with this as he also doesn't know what I'm transmitting.

It is better to live in a realm of fantasies than to use your personal mobile phone to transmit secure information.
The VPN protocol is secure, but are you sure your encryption keys are safe if you use Apple or Android software?

I just wanted to say that your mobile phone is not your assistant, but your enemy.

[oleg8791]

I'm not positive about these restrictions, but I understand that the mass adoption isn't possible without the strict regulations.

[binkchaindev]

Everyday that I try and learn about sane financial law and policy it gets even muddier. It is so obvious that regulators serve their self interest at the expense of the citizenry and the people just concede because its such dense nonsense and regulatory by law. Their rules are simple, keep a hold of financial industries, and tax people the maximum amount. Period. Which is why bitcoin exists in the first place. to wrestle financial control away from these absolute monsters.

[Harlot]

Will the current regulations now get anything worst? Because IMO custodial wallets in the US are heavily regulated. Coinbase and other custodial wallets have been handing out "random" reports  for the IRS, they have also helped to track the Twitter hack that had happened easily, they have also freeze several accounts already when it comes to illicit activities. So really what more regulations they can do for the people to experience when they already have a lot of control with custodial wallets? Are they thinking about some kind of license for us to be able to use custodial wallets or something?

[20kevin20]

Will the current regulations now get anything worst? Because IMO custodial wallets in the US are heavily regulated. Coinbase and other custodial wallets have been handing out "random" reports  for the IRS, they have also helped to track the Twitter hack that had happened easily, they have also freeze several accounts already when it comes to illicit activities. So really what more regulations they can do for the people to experience when they already have a lot of control with custodial wallets? Are they thinking about some kind of license for us to be able to use custodial wallets or something?

Oh, well, if Mnuchin's plan succeeds, things would get only worse than they've ever been. Their plan is to basically outlaw any address that is not verified with your identity. As in, you would only be able to use your address in the USA if you officially and legally register it to your personally identifiable information. Any address that is not registered to an ID would be outlawed.

[mindrust]

Oh, well, if Mnuchin's plan succeeds, things would get only worse than they've ever been.

For crypto users maybe. The others that don't use crypto are already being tracked anyway.

Even if you don't comply and don't report your holdings, those merchants and others businesses will report theirs and will do KYC on you when the government asks them.

Which basically means you won't be able to buy anything online unless you comply.

[error08]

Oh, well, if Mnuchin's plan succeeds, things would get only worse than they've ever been.

For crypto users maybe. The others that don't use crypto are already being tracked anyway.

Even if you don't comply and don't report your holdings, those merchants and others businesses will report theirs and will do KYC on you when the government asks them.

Which basically means you won't be able to buy anything online unless you comply.

Too much hassle to fulfill what they want, imagine people always have to ask for documents to verify the recipient.
(Finally, many recipients (in the U.S. or abroad) who value their financial privacy, may simply not want to upload more identifying documents to various companies,
which could be hacked or stolen.)
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1331745443399647233

Hopefully, it's just a plan without realization, so many aspects to be considered and overcome to make this regulation functioning properly.

[20kevin20]

For crypto users maybe. The others that don't use crypto are already being tracked anyway.

Even if you don't comply and don't report your holdings, those merchants and others businesses will report theirs and will do KYC on you when the government asks them.

Which basically means you won't be able to buy anything online unless you comply.

This doesn't make it any better for anyone though, be it crypto or non-crypto people. Through little steps, they've reached the point where outlawing non-verified addresses becomes a legit contemplation of politicians. If we keep going the "we're being tracked anyway" route, things will get very bad in a matter of years.

If they want to find out who I am as a customer and where my money comes from, let them do it. Maybe there are some criminals among the customers of a shop. But it's a very, very bad idea to monitor everyone. This is exactly as if we're all potential criminals from point zero.

Let's take fiat as an example; I think it is already enough that we're giving away our data to so many stores for online orders we make. I would not want to register the USD banknotes I own to my ID to legally use them. It's creepy. Imagine the government knew where every single bill from every single US citizen's wallet goes. You may argue that is exactly the case of debit cards - yeah, except they're still a personal option, not mandatory.

[mindrust]

Too much hassle to fulfill what they want, imagine people always have to ask for documents to verify the recipient.
(Finally, many recipients (in the U.S. or abroad) who value their financial privacy, may simply not want to upload more identifying documents to various companies,
which could be hacked or stolen.)
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1331745443399647233

Hopefully, it's just a plan without realization, so many aspects to be considered and overcome to make this regulation functioning properly.

It is already happening everywhere. Any exchange that doesn't do KYC, does KYC after a while when you want to withdraw your funds no matter how big or small they are. I know from my experience with binance. They don't care. They want your passport scan.

This doesn't make it any better for anyone though, be it crypto or non-crypto people. Through little steps, they've reached the point where outlawing non-verified addresses becomes a legit contemplation of politicians. If we keep going the "we're being tracked anyway" route, things will get very bad in a matter of years.

If they want to find out who I am as a customer and where my money comes from, let them do it. Maybe there are some criminals among the customers of a shop. But it's a very, very bad idea to monitor everyone. This is exactly as if we're all potential criminals from point zero.

Let's take fiat as an example; I think it is already enough that we're giving away our data to so many stores for online orders we make. I would not want to register the USD banknotes I own to my ID to legally use them. It's creepy. Imagine the government knew where every single bill from every single US citizen's wallet goes. You may argue that is exactly the case of debit cards - yeah, except they're still a personal option, not mandatory.

I am not saying we have to obey just because we are already being tracked.

I am saying that it won't be easy to earn your freedom without putting up a fight.

That's not how it works.

Nobody will give you your freedom if you are not willing to take it yourself.

In the end they will turn crypto into more of the same thing, but better. Digital FIAT without any physical bank notes. Any government's wet dream.

[stomachgrowls]

I'm not positive about these restrictions, but I understand that the mass adoption isn't possible without the strict regulations.

Don't bother yourself, such "strict regulations" are round the corner. "G7 Finance Ministers Support Regulating Cryptocurrencies" This poses a risk that  all in all expected mass adoption of cryptocurrency   will never come. The thing is aggrevated by the central banks plans  to release  centralized digital currencies in the nearest future.

We are indeed going into that path.So it isnt really that a surprising thing about probabilities of such things to happen yet government wont really be allowing crypto or decentralization would really
cover up their asses without doing anything.

We might saw some form of adoption but this regulation or possible plans would really be a big hindrance or a wall that will partially block on what we do aim for.

So expect that there might be some implementation of these things in near future.

[zasad@]

How Upcoming Crypto Wallet Restrictions Will Affect You
https://decrypt.co/51917/how-upcoming-crypto-wallet-restrictions-will-affect-you

"The US Treasury is expected to impose transaction reporting restrictions on self-hosted crypto wallets soon."

If the same regulation is introduced in the United States, then most crypto companies will leave this country.

[voteformeg]

Will this become a reality? And if something happens then, an end to confidentiality? "Last week we heard rumors that the U.S. Treasury and Secretary Mnuchin were planning to rush out some new regulation regarding self-hosted crypto wallets before the end of his term."

Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.

i am not afraid of that announcement , there are people with enormeous amounts of bitcoin in wallets that are made long ago , mostly impossible to get a map or something to follow each wallet to their owner.

but indeed , it is getting harder for new bitcoiners to stay anonimous

[zasad@]

Will this become a reality? And if something happens then, an end to confidentiality? "Last week we heard rumors that the U.S. Treasury and Secretary Mnuchin were planning to rush out some new regulation regarding self-hosted crypto wallets before the end of his term."

Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.

i am not afraid of that announcement , there are people with enormeous amounts of bitcoin in wallets that are made long ago , mostly impossible to get a map or something to follow each wallet to their owner.

but indeed , it is getting harder for new bitcoiners to stay anonimous

Please tell me if the largest shadow cryptocurrency markets are located in Russia, Kazakhstan or China.
Is it really impossible to buy bitcoins or other cryptocurrencies for cash in Europe or the USA?
It's not illegal in Russia or Kazakhstan now, but I don't know how it happens in other countries.

[ven7net]

Will this become a reality? And if something happens then, an end to confidentiality? "Last week we heard rumors that the U.S. Treasury and Secretary Mnuchin were planning to rush out some new regulation regarding self-hosted crypto wallets before the end of his term."

Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.

I also began to see information that cryptocurrency regulation awaits us, which means governments want access to information about the owners of cryptocurrencies. Unfortunately, all this goes exactly to this and sooner or later we will have to face the system and find a compromise. As for whether the crypto community can do something, I doubt that the crypto community has leverage over this situation. The latest high-profile events show that the authorities have taken seriously the crypto sphere and, gradually studying it, are making their own adjustments.

[figmentofmyass]

can anyone clarify---is the reporting threshold in the proposed law $3000 per day, as stated here? because i also see mention of this in FINCEN's original notice:

the proposed decrease in the applicable threshold for international transactions from $3,000 to $250
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28437/requirements-for-certain-transactions-involving-convertible-virtual-currency-or-digital-assets

the coindesk article does go onto say, "[The controversial rule] originally was thought to be far more stringent than the final version published last week."

but i can't help but wonder if there is an important distinction being missed here. wtf is this about "international transactions"?

$3k ain't that bad. $250 scares the shit outta me.

[malevolent]

$3k ain't that bad.

That's how it starts. First $10k fifty years ago, now $3k, a lot less when accounting for inflation.

$250 scares the shit outta me.

And that's how it ends.

I've had a number of payments via PP in the past of comparably low size (from USA, of course) that were sent to me reversed for AML reasons. (the person I was dealing with at the time was for some reason unable to make an international bank transfer, fortunately Bitcoin came in to save the day, that might become impossible in the future for ordinary people.)

[squatter]

There are two distinct but related proposals in play. One regards the "self-hosted wallet" rule change discussed in this thread, which would require money services businesses to collect KYC information for transactions of $3,000 or more to a non-custodial wallet.

The second was actually published in late October, and is intended to implement the FATF Travel Rule. The rule requires KYC collection on cross-border transactions with a de minimis threshold of no higher than 1,000 USD or EUR.

The Fed and FinCEN are taking a ridiculously hard line by lowering that threshold to $250:

The existing requirements in 31 CFR 1020.410(a) and 31 CFR 1010.410(e) and (f) to collect, retain, and transmit information on funds transfers and transmittals of funds currently apply only to funds transfers and transmittals of funds in amounts of $3,000 or more. The Agencies are proposing to lower the threshold under the Recordkeeping Rule, and FinCEN is proposing to lower the threshold under the Travel Rule, to $250 for funds transfers and transmittals of funds that begin or end outside the United States.

Of course, the "self-hosted wallet" rule change would apply to these transactions as well.

From what I can tell these are both just proposals, but that may be a formality. I expected FinCEN to pass new regulations complying with the Travel Rule a while ago. I would be surprised if they proposed this rule change right before Trump exits only to forget about it.