Reminder: US House meeting to end privacy, mining and software development in US

[BrianH]

If you care about retaining privacy, mining or software development in the US, contact your US House representative to add an amendment to this bill.  

“As long as the statute says that software developers, miners, stakers must do the impossible, there is no lawyer who would advise them to risk operating in violation of laws whose penalties for non-compliance would easily bankrupt them,” he said, adding:
“This will harm innovation and stifle the potential of a hugely important technology at its earliest stages of development [...] Tax policy should be thoughtful and deliberate. Broad overreach is a regulatory mistake.”

https://www.coindesk.cc/coinbase-warns-infrastructure-bill-s-crypto-provisions-could-impact-20-of-us-population-39813.html

Despite recent misinformation that this bill depends on the "interpretation" from the Treasury, ultimately the future of Bitcoin in the US will depend on whether the damaging crypto provisions in the "infrastructure" bill pass. This is a lie to get people to ignore the issue. The bill's wording can be interpreted however they want and they can choose to enforce this ban whenever they want. DeFi will also effectively be dead, in the US. The US will be little different than China, in this regard.

Update: Damaging crypto provisions nearly locked in:

The House Rules Committee, which drafts the terms of debate for bills headed to the floor, agreed to a process that would prohibit any amendments from being considered for the infrastructure bill. The full House was scheduled to vote to lock in the procedure Tuesday afternoon. The plan would also set up a floor vote on the infrastructure package by Sept. 27.

The House was set to close the door to infrastructure bill changes despite calls from Democrats and Republicans to pare back the cryptocurrency tax proposal that the Senate passed as part of the legislation earlier this month.

Update 8/31/21 - Foreign exchange tracking to be added::

Citing an unnamed official within the Biden administration, Roll Call reported on Monday that the administration is looking to append provisions to the budget bill requiring U.S. digital asset firms report information on their foreign clients.

As with the infrastructure bill, the purpose of the potential regulation is to enhance tax compliance and boost tax revenues at the expense of the crypto industry. As per the official’s account, the U.S. government would then exchange the data on foreign nationals’ cryptocurrency-related activity with the respective governments to obtain information on U.S. citizens’ crypto operations overseas.

Translation: no using a foreign exchange to obtain or exchange cryptocurrency for US citizens. Goodbye privacy.

[1714825423]

1714825423

[1714825423]

1714825423

[Gyfts]

Americans don't care about privacy, they can contact their house representatives all they want.

I've read a bit about the provision in the Infrastructure spending bill and it seems like a poor attempt to increase tax revenue by invading privacy as the means, with the end result just to tax the hell out of those in the crypto industry so they can pay for their 1.25 trillion in spending. The American electorate, and by proxy, politicians, don't understand privacy, let alone basic crypto fundamentals, so it's a shame that this will get passed.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Update: Damaging crypto provisions nearly locked in:

Amendments at this stage were always going to be unlikely. We can still fight this with future amendments or future legislation to overturn the ridiculous crypto provisions. It is not too late to be calling your Representative.

Lots of good info here, along with template letters and contact details: www.dontkillcrypto.com

[20kevin20]

We're all springing off to a very Chinese-like style of governance and ruling at such a fast pace it's scary. Unfortunately, announcements against privacy aren't met by negativity as much as I wish they would be.

Now these guys are either absolutely incompetent or they are doing this with intention to kill crypto and push forward their new CBDCs that they're currently working on, and I unfortunately believe the latter applies. We can try fighting off this BS, but they found such good excuses for draconic laws that too many people are brainwashed into thinking everything's done for our good ..

Anyway, how many amendment filings (or however the procedure against these new rulings is called) are needed for it to be reconsidered/denied?

[o_e_l_e_o]

We're all springing off to a very Chinese-like style of governance and ruling at such a fast pace it's scary.

I've said it before on these forums - "Land of the free" is government propaganda at this point. Free to be spied on by your government. Free to elect one of the two candidates that Wall Street has picked for you. Free to be shot and killed for minor misdemeanors, or indeed, no crime at all. Free to spend your life in a for-profit prison for a victimless crime such as smoking some weed. Free to be made bankrupt for having the sheer audacity to get sick, despite spending more of your tax dollars on healthcare than any other developed nation. Don't worry though, as long as we get all school children to recite their praise for our glorious leader "liberty and justice for all", maybe they'll not notice.

Unfortunately, announcements against privacy aren't met by negativity as much as I wish they would be.

We can't expect the general public to care when even people on this forum don't care. Hell, people on this forum, a forum dedicated to a project whose entire ethos is to get away from trusting third parties, not only don't care about privacy invasion but actively encourage it. "KYC is a good thing" and "More regulations mean crypto is going mainstream" are opinions you often see parroted on here.

Now these guys are either absolutely incompetent or they are doing this with intention to kill crypto and push forward their new CBDCs that they're currently working on, and I unfortunately believe the latter applies.

A little bit of both. The vast majority of Senators and House Reps have no idea what a cryptocurrency is, but they are bought and paid for by the bankers and Wall Street, so will just do as they are told.

[Kong Hey Pakboy]

We're all springing off to a very Chinese-like style of governance and ruling at such a fast pace it's scary. Unfortunately, announcements against privacy aren't met by negativity as much as I wish they would be.

Now these guys are either absolutely incompetent or they are doing this with intention to kill crypto and push forward their new CBDCs that they're currently working on, and I unfortunately believe the latter applies. We can try fighting off this BS, but they found such good excuses for draconic laws that too many people are brainwashed into thinking everything's done for our good ..

Anyway, how many amendment filings (or however the procedure against these new rulings is called) are needed for it to be reconsidered/denied?

That's the surprising thing, people don't seem to not care about their privacy anymore, this discussion don't seem to meet a lot of opposition given how drastic it is, I wouldn't say that they're at the level of China but I think US is arriving there sooner or later, either the people raise their voices or this will go through.

[dkbit98]

Most of the people are deep asleep sadly and don't care about anything, they don't even think with their heads but they just react as animals.
If there wasn't few senators and some rear politicians who support Bitcoin and crypto industry we would be screwed long time ago, but there is still hope.
If you want to see how much American citizens know about Bitcoin and how much they care about privacy with new bills and regulations, check out this recent video with street interviews made by Minority ENT from Dallas, Texas:
https://youtu.be/LeXabg8W1YQ

The US will be little different than China, in this regard.

They are following China perfectly, as if they are operated from the same center.

A little bit of both. The vast majority of Senators and House Reps have no idea what a cryptocurrency is, but they are bought and paid for by the bankers and Wall Street, so will just do as they are told.

This just reflects general population and I wonder if those politicians who support Bitcoin are sponsored and paid by some Bitcoin whales

[o_e_l_e_o]

If you want to see how much American citizens know about Bitcoin

Politicians needs to be held to a higher standard. If you are about to pass laws and regulations which could complete destroy an entire industry, then you should be duty bound to do at least the bare minimum research on that industry.

This just reflects general population and I wonder if those politicians who support Bitcoin are sponsored and paid by some Bitcoin whales

Some definitely have other motives. I was more than a little surprised that Ted Cruz was on our side here, so much so that he even tried to stop Shelby from attaching his ridiculous military spending amendment to the crypto amendment. Almost certainly there is something else going on in the background, given Texas' position to attract huge numbers of miners and develop their renewable energy infrastructure because of them. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Cruz has huge numbers of shares in Texas energy companies, or is receiving some kind of incentive from them.

Still, I like to think our democracy isn't completely useless just yet, and if millions of people start calling their Representatives about this, that something will be done about it.

[Trojane]

Most legitimate countries and individuals have decided to retain crypto and this is from the concurrent informations they have heard over the years and some have decided to refrain and even go as much as trying to demolish it.
Well, we still believe though we don't know exactly where it is heading to, but we know surely that someday,somehow it will contribute to the world's Economy
Trojane💎

[BrianH]

Now these guys are either absolutely incompetent or they are doing this with intention to kill crypto and push forward their new CBDCs that they're currently working on, and I unfortunately believe the latter applies. We can try fighting off this BS, but they found such good excuses for draconic laws that too many people are brainwashed into thinking everything's done for our good ..

Anyway, how many amendment filings (or however the procedure against these new rulings is called) are needed for it to be reconsidered/denied?

Politicians most certainly do this intentionally. With trillions of dollars at stake, nothing is by "accident." Even if the politician themselves are incompetent, they have dozens of assistants who write and interpret policy for them.
Original bill author (Senator Rob Portman) lied and claimed he did not intend to target miners or developers. If that were true, he would have supported the amendment to exclude them. He did not. The amendment also decreased the projected tax revenue. Clearly it is intended to target them, as well as strip Americans of their privacy by forcing them through KYC exchanges. Senator Portman knew what he was doing. It is no coincidence that a retiring senator was the one who took the blame for the amendments not passing in the Senate. It was later discovered that the original bill was driven by former Federal Reserve Chairman, Janet Yellen - the Fed has the most to lose if cryptocurrency takes over and disrupts the money printing done by the Fed / Washington. Their ultimate goal is likely to ban Bitcoin/crypto and force everyone to use non-private CBDCs.

It only takes one amendment to change this bill. However, the House voted yesterday to vote on the unamended bill on Sept. 27th. There is still an opportunity to get them to vote against it.

Update: Damaging crypto provisions nearly locked in:

Amendments at this stage were always going to be unlikely. We can still fight this with future amendments or future legislation to overturn the ridiculous crypto provisions. It is not too late to be calling your Representative.

Lots of good info here, along with template letters and contact details: www.dontkillcrypto.com

Good stuff. Reaching out to my local politician through other channels here. We need people to encourage them to vote against this bill. Keep up the fight.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Senator Portman knew what he was doing.

It is no accident that he only "changed his mind" and starting supporting the amendment after it reached the stage of requiring unanimous approval from the Senate (rather than just a simply majority), which he knew was never going to happen.

It is no coincidence that a retiring senator was the one who took the blame for the amendments not passing in the Senate.

The man who doesn't know how to send an email and communicates with this staff by leaving them hand written notes. And we expect these people to reach an informed decision on cryptocurrency. Absolutely laughable.

[Artemis3]

I have been saying this for years:

Any attempts to obstruct Bitcoin, is wealth that will go elsewhere.

China and America hate Bitcoin? No problem, the rest of the world will enjoy it. Their loss.

Nothing can stop Bitcoin, unless humans go extinct or back to the rock age.

[franky1]

the bills wording is clearly about MSB's (money service businesses(custodians))

it clearly says about people that take responsibility of another persons funds for the service of transfering to another person

the very description of custodians

pools are not custodians. neither are software developers
neither pools or software developers have to register as being a MSB

seems oeleo is weirdly obsessed to trying to misinform the community that this bill is about software developers by jumping into every topic of the bill to push a campaign to spamming representatives about rewording to exclude software developers..
.. thats like saying redraft it to exclude people selling banana's for bitcoin.

he is another network fangirl and should actually worry about the other network he loves to much having MSB issues in regards to routing. and he should be concentrating on getting a redraft to exclude hobby/individuals who use routing to be excluded excluded.
(a useful campaign that will make good use of his time and help him personally)

maybe a simple redraft of 'businesses' as the first word instead of 'persons'
a very simple and acceptable change..  

again for context and emphasis.. software developers and pools are not custodians so they wont need to register as MSB
so no redraft is needed to clarify that because its actually pretty clear.
but if getting petty then yea 'businesses' instead of 'persons' makes it abundantly clear even to the idiots

some are just so blind that they might aswell pull the propaganda cord fully and make more crap up and make more fear that people that sell banana's are 'brokers' because they take money from one(customer) and give it to another(employees)
but common sense and logic and a sense of reality of how the real world works know that a banana retailer is not a broker and doesnt need to do KYC on customers
seems oeleo is just following some campaign he seen on twitter without actually doing the independent thought. a tactic i seen him do many times of just blindly following propaganda scripts

a software developer doesnt even take in money to give to others..
a pool doesnt even become a custodian to take in money

when people actually think. and really think.. the bill is clear. it is not going to harm software developers and pools. so no re-draft is needed

[witcher_sense]

We can't expect the general public to care when even people on this forum don't care. Hell, people on this forum, a forum dedicated to a project whose entire ethos is to get away from trusting third parties, not only don't care about privacy invasion but actively encourage it. "KYC is a good thing" and "More regulations mean crypto is going mainstream" are opinions you often see parroted on here.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people here are strict regulation and surveillance advocates, which means when posting about privacy-preserving techniques, disobedience to government, natural human rights, and things like that you are risking being misunderstood, ridiculed, betrayed. These are people who don't know what principles of bitcoin are, why it was created in the first place, why obsolete banking rules cannot be applied to the new kind of money, bankless digital money. Even if they knew all of that, they wouldn't care anyway. They'd rather sacrifice the freedom bitcoin offers them for imaginary "convenience" and "protection". "Unregulated" no- KYC bitcoin frightens them because it requires people to be open-minded, responsible, fearless. The government can't regulate bitcoin, they can't take control over it. What they do is "regulate" and manipulate people's minds depriving them of the ability to think clearly.

[stompix]

China and America hate Bitcoin? No problem, the rest of the world will enjoy it. Their loss.

No problem? No problem?

We just lost 80 exahash of protection because of the mess in China and now you think we can simply cut another country from mining? Where do you think will those miners migrate then next? Salvador?    Let's be serious, send 1% of the miners there and their work grid is down.

Let's turn to count investors? How many companies from Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Somalia, and Bartovia have purchased 1% of what grayscale and micro have?

Oh, just cut the countries that hold half of the world's wealth and you think everything will be fine, Bitcoin will survive because 3 billion people that can't afford even on tx at 1sat/vb a day will support it. No, bitcoin can't be stopped, their loss, do you wanna see the markets when the rest of the world will be left alone to "enjoy" it?

That's the surprising thing, people don't seem to not care about their privacy anymore.

Why are you surprised, the average citizen never cared about privacy! Remember telephone books? A full book with names, addresses, and phone numbers, yet people were fine with it.
How would you feel right now if those were made mandatory again? Trust me after the initial outrage everyone will be fine with them again, for 90% of the world privacy is that annoying shit because of which they have to spend one extra click to set up cookie preferences when visiting a website. 

[Kakmakr]

Well, Banks took a beating against Bitcoin and Crypto currencies... and also large financial consulting firms... so it is just a natural push back from the government that protects them. Some Bank even suggested lately that the developers associated with Bitcoin should be prosecuted. (People like Gavin Andresen) 

So even if you not the creator of the "privacy" software and only the maintainer.... they will hunt you down.     The US is fast becoming a "Police State" like China... but they are always pointing fingers at China. 

[electronicash]

That's the surprising thing, people don't seem to not care about their privacy anymore.

Why are you surprised, the average citizen never cared about privacy! Remember telephone books? A full book with names, addresses, and phone numbers, yet people were fine with it.
How would you feel right now if those were made mandatory again? Trust me after the initial outrage everyone will be fine with them again, for 90% of the world privacy is that annoying shit because of which they have to spend one extra click to set up cookie preferences when visiting a website.  

lol i remember that phone book where you just have to look for the name and dial the number.

if Americans don't want to be like China, they better tag Yellen you are against this bill. If she wins because most probably she can bribe every senator and congressman out there,  there goes your freedom. they might even have the social credit system as a plan for you all just like China has.

miners are brokers as law. looks like its made by someone who doesn't understand how this works.

[DooMAD]

the bill is clear.

The only thing that's clear is the astonishing naivety in what you're saying.  People with vested interests that are openly hostile to Bitcoin are responsible for the decisions being made here.  This is an altogether different situation to the SEC commenting on defi regulations.  This has far greater scope for abuse.  But you've made it clear why you prefer the wording as it currently stands.  It's just precise enough for your own sordid agenda:

he is another network fangirl and should actually worry about the other network he loves to much having MSB issues in regards to routing. and he should be concentrating on getting a redraft to exclude hobby/individuals who use routing to be excluded excluded.

Thank you for revealing that your stance on this matter is entirely predicated on your vendetta.  You desire a regulatory environment which is hostile to Lighting and you'll say literally anything to convince people that's somehow a good thing.  Even if it has consequences for non-LN users.

You really are a one-trick pony, aren't you. 

[o_e_l_e_o]

which means when posting about privacy-preserving techniques, disobedience to government, natural human rights, and things like that you are risking being misunderstood

That's part of the problem: An assumption that if you want to preserve your privacy then that automatically means you are doing something to disobey the government, i.e. illegal. I just want to have the freedom to live my life and spend my money without being spied on or harassed.

seems oeleo is weirdly obsessed

Sure, it's all me. That's why everyone here except you is on my side of this discussion. That's why there are entire campaigns being ran on Reddit and Twitter to get people to call their representatives. That's why multiple Senators tried to amend the language of the bill, and now multiple House Reps are trying to do the same thing. That's why every news site, crypto or otherwise, is talking about how bad this bill is for bitcoin. That's why people like Brian Armstrong, Mark Cuban, and Elon Musk have spoken out against this bill. I sure do have a lot of influence to do all this myself.

Or maybe, just maybe, you are the one who is wrong here?

[Lucius]

China and America hate Bitcoin? No problem, the rest of the world will enjoy it. Their loss.

Don't underestimate the influence of these two countries, because maybe someone will say that China's complete exit from the crypto world is not necessarily a bad thing - but if the US moves in a similar direction, what do you think all those US-influenced countries will do? I am thinking of India, Japan and most EU countries that will do what they are advised to do - because no one wants the Americans to reassure them in a friendly way that something needs to be done.

The man who doesn't know how to send an email and communicates with this staff by leaving them hand written notes. And we expect these people to reach an informed decision on cryptocurrency. Absolutely laughable.

It seems that they were looking for just such a man for the job, and he is doing it perfectly for now. In the end, he can always say that he didn't really understand what he was doing, but that he meant the best.