Goodbye, privacy, goodbye, it was nice while it lasted.

[Luzin]

Bitcoin is indeed above government regulations, but each country or government has its own rules or regulations. The government will not fully regulate Cryptocurrency they only regulate the entrance but not for the inside. Don't worry, your personal wallet will still be decentralized and only you can manage it, because you own the private key.

So far it is true, they can only do that and can't seem to manage beyond that. So far I feel optimistic that Bitcoin will be even more profitable because the government has opened its eyes to regulations and even collect taxes. Even if in order all transactions can be tracked if ever transactions on exchanges and banks in the form of fiat. In fact I have read if the BTC Mixer service from Coinjoin has also provided support for transactions suspected of money laundering.

[1714659078]

1714659078

[1714659078]

1714659078

[1714659078]

1714659078

[1714659078]

1714659078

[wiss19]

We have to realize that IRS is not responsible for all the trouble we are going through, neither is the person who would go through thousands of papers, a pallet of papers really. That is not responsibility of the person who is working on it.

This is like going to some Sony retail store and making life miserable for some worker there, the CEO of Sony would not even know you exist, they wouldn't care about who you are and what you do, they do not know about their own workers neither, they won't mind and you can do that forever and it would not change their life. It would be the retail worker whose life you are screwing.

Same here, whoever is hired to do that job, go through a pallet of papers, would hate you, but the ones who put the law there wouldn't even care, they wouldn't even be aware that a problem like this exists so it doesn't change anything at all.

[d5000]

Looks like you are partly right. On closer examination though, it isn't that individual transactions can't be over 1000 EUR, but rather if that person has received over 1000 EUR across all transactions. This gives you a deposit limit of slightly over 0.02 BTC at current prices before you are automatically reported to the authorities.

The imprecise way the passage is formulated, it could be interpreted this way (which is problematic). However, from the other parts of the proposal I read, the "1000 € limit" seems to apply to 1) single transactions and 2) transactions which seem to have been splitted to evade the limit, like it is already common when judging if such a limit was evaded with bank transfers.

There is also section 33a of the "whereas" section (the summary at the start, I don't know how these sections are called "correctly" in English):

In the case of a transfer of crypto-assets from an unhosted wallet, the provider of crypto-asset transfers of the beneficiary should collect the information required under this Regulation and inform the competent authorities where any of its customers received an amount exceeding EUR 1 000 from unhosted wallets.

(Source: Current draft)

The "a transfer" I highlighted is an indication for me that they're indeed talking about a single transfer.

However, the whole part is so imprecisely formulated (it looks like a last minute addition) that if left unchanged it will be probably up to the courts to decide what was meant, and it's possible that some of them would prefer the interpretation you made - that all transfers from unhosted wallets are accumulated (regardless of the moment they were sent) and it must be reported even when there is a single 1 €-transaction which exceeds this limit.

[KevinMiles]

The latest news info - UK wants to be a crypto hub and plan to exploit the crypto potential, what about EU - did they still want to commit a crypto suicide with their overregulations? I guess will soon find out?! UK probably made the right choice leaving the EU.

[Poker Player]

Putting in context everything that has been discussed in the thread, we are in a global context of reduction in the use of cash voluntarily by people, who prefer to pay with their cell phone or smartwatch, and the governments are smiling thinking about cashless societies in the future, or with cash replaced by CBDC, whose essential difference with cash is that governments can know what you spend all your money on.

Bitcoin and later currencies like Monero appeared as an alternative to fiat, but if laws like the draft we are talking about are implemented and measures like the one Lucius mentioned regarding privacy coins are taken:

I am in the EU, and in my country they have solved it in a way that regulatory agencies have asked all local crypto exchanges to remove such cryptocurrencies from their offer - and they have done so. I see no reason why this should not be a model that others will not follow

P2p trading will be pretty much useless for the acquisition of goods and services. I think the original idea of Satoshi, and those of us who have dreamed at some point of mass global adoption, would be to be able to spend Bitcoin, perhaps with LN or some other system, in the future for the things we spend fiat on today.

But with these legislations, even if we can acquire some goods and services, the most basic necessities we are not going to be able to acquire without KYC. Ideally, with a Bitcoin-friendly government, a threshold could be set below which no transaction reporting or KYC would be required, for example $100 (I remember reading this idea from o_e_l_e_o), but as it turns out, it doesn't look like this is going to happen.

Let's analyze which of the basic necessities we could pay in the future without KYC:

1) Food. We have all at some point dreamed at some point in time of being able to pay at Walmart or equivalent in the future with Bitcoin. If that ever happens, it will be with KYC. Regarding the number of transactions discussed above, I believe that the IRS will simply use software.

Reminds me of the guy who claimed to have a trading bot set up to trade constantly all day long with a target of zero profit, just so he could send thousands upon thousands of meaningless trades to the IRS and force someone to waste their time going through it all.

I understand that just as you can set up a trading bot you can set up a program that analyzes the reported movements.

2) Shelter. Forget about paying a mortgage with Bitcoin or paying directly for a house if you have sufficient funds in Bitcoin without KYC. Maybe an undeclared rent, with the potential problems it could cause, we could pay it.

3) Clothing. The same. If you know someone who has a small store and is a bitcoin believer, maybe they will accept Bitcoin payment to buy clothes from you, but it is highly unlikely, because there are going to be fewer and fewer small businesses of this kind left.

4) Transportation. The same. You can maybe buy a second-hand car to a P2P private individual, but nothing more.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The "a transfer" I highlighted is an indication for me that they're indeed talking about a single transfer.

Conversely, the end of that sentence - "from unhosted wallets" - suggests they are talking about multiple transfers, rather than saying "from an unhosted wallet" if they were talking about a single transfer. As you say, it is open to interpretation, but my experience is that generally lawmakers will interpret things in the way that gives them the most power and gives citizens the least freedom.

But with these legislations, even if we can acquire some goods and services, the most basic necessities we are not going to be able to acquire without KYC. Ideally, with a Bitcoin-friendly government, a threshold could be set below which no transaction reporting or KYC would be required, for example $100 (I remember reading this idea from o_e_l_e_o), but as it turns out, it doesn't look like this is going to happen.

I think the initial point I made regarding a lower limit was for tax purposes. In the US, when considering foreign currency then you do not pay capital gains on any transaction below $200. Such a limit would immediately make using and spending bitcoin as a currency far more feasible. Rolling in the reporting requirements to this as well as you suggest would also be beneficial. When considering the travel rule for fiat, the limit is anything up to $3,000, or the equivalent in another currency. I'm not entirely sure what the limit is in the EU, but the report we are linking to here seems to suggest it is 1000 EUR. Fairly ridiculous, all things considered, that there will be a $0 limit for taxing and reporting bitcoin transactions.

The thing is, bitcoin is not going anyway. If the EU wants to be hostile towards it, then the EU will simply fall behind. And in another 20 years when other countries have huge cryptocurrency sectors built on personal freedom and non-stifling regulations, then the EU will have to play catch up. Their loss.

[DooMAD]

Is it just me, or is this entire topic completely ass-backwards?  You can't lose what you never had to begin with.

If you've used an exchange, you lost your privacy the moment you handed your money to someone else to hold for you.  Total strangers you've never met, or even knew the names of, became acutely aware of you and your wealth because you literally gave it to them.  When you withdraw your funds, they can follow the trail.  And then some of you started attaching your real world identities to this wealth, because they asked you to and you were too indoctrinated to say no.  You said goodbye to privacy a long damn time ago.

This is your opportunity to finally learn what privacy really is.

I've been working under the assumption that centralised exchanges have been on borrowed time for a few years now.  Which is why I've been staying away from them.  It was always reasonably likely that things were going to turn out this way.  Ultimately, I think it'll be healthier in the long run if fewer people use custodial services like that.  It was concerning to me that so few people actually saw a problem with the amount of trust required and the amount of privacy surrendered, so if people do suddenly feel disincentivised to rely on third parties, I'd say it's about damn time.  It's kinda the whole point of what we're doing here.  

Welcome to Bitcoin.  It's nice to finally have you on board.  Get your money off the exchanges and allow them to wither and die already.  We can do so much better.

[stompix]

The thing is, bitcoin is not going anyway. If the EU wants to be hostile towards it, then the EU will simply fall behind. And in another 20 years when other countries have huge cryptocurrency sectors built on personal freedom and non-stifling regulations, then the EU will have to play catch up. Their loss.

Sorry but that's just daydreaming.

Other countries will build something only if it rewards them financially, all businesses in crypto do this only for money, you might not like it but right now that's what 99% of the whole system is about, businesses and authorities will not invest money if there isn't something to be gained from, which usually is more money.
And more financial freedom and more money in taxes are simply contradictory situations. I've seen a lot of those things on how countries will have x and y and z to lose if they become hostile to bitcoin, as a country (we're excluding from this personal finances) what do you have to lose from this, assuming the whole of Europe completely bans crypto, from the government's point of view, and income in taxes, what do they lose? Let's be honest about it, all of us praise the way BTC helps us avoid fiscal control, it's not like crypto businesses are paying billions in taxes, and the money they spend on other things, it's not money made out of thin air it's from people who have invested their money that would have ended being taxed anyhow.

Do you see China falling because they've banned bitcoin?  Why? Won't they be able to produce smartphones, clothes, teacups, or raise pigs because of this?
We're still talking about what Satoshi thought bitcoin would be about and I've never seen a paragraph on how countries that will not adapt to this will crumble to ruin nor how this p2p will revolutionize state affairs.

For me is quite interesting how at the same time people lean towards total libertarianism but at the same time they are trying to bring the authorities into the picture, and in all this mess, despite being willing to go to extreme lengths to cut their control and say in the matters they somehow manage to find a scenario where this will reward them for nonimplication. How that is possible, as I asked you before is beyond me!

Again this is about countries, not about individuals, that's a whole other thing, individuals for example can move, but I'm yet to see a single forum member moving to Salvador to take advantage of taxes or freedom or opportunities. And that is mainly because 99% of the individuals in the world don't really care about 1-5% in taxes as much as they care for something being convenient and not requiring clicking more than two "I accept" buttons, 1 million will take a photo of their ID, 100 will think about installing bisq and one will actually do.

I know it doesn't sound nice, but I know everyone knows deep down that's what's happening, it ain't going to be a utopia as we're heading full speed to one hell of a dystopian future

Also I don't get how they want to handle Monero, since the transactions aren't public. Will they just ban it? Many open questions.

Why do they have to do something about it? The community is doing this for them at no cost, monero capitalization has dwindled compared to BTC from 1:40 to 1:200, give it a few more years, and you're going to see people asking if Monero has NFTs   When Metaverse!?!

4) Transportation. The same. You can maybe buy a second-hand car to a P2P private individual, but nothing more.

Not if it's more than 10k, all transactions over 10k in value, you will either need to find a buyer willing to fake the value of the car in the contract or make a multi-payment contract, not that many who will agree on it.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Do you see China falling because they've banned bitcoin?  Why? Won't they be able to produce smartphones, clothes, teacups, or raise pigs because of this?

You can't compare countries of different regimes and expect to make a proper conclusion. If the pigs administrate their economy, last thing they'd want is uncontrollable, censorship-resistant money. Also, who says it's banned? All I know is that they've forbidden mining.

Again this is about countries, not about individuals, that's a whole other thing, individuals for example can move, but I'm yet to see a single forum member moving to Salvador to take advantage of taxes or freedom or opportunities.

Perhaps because there are hundreds of other reasons one won't leave their country?

For me is quite interesting how at the same time people lean towards total libertarianism but at the same time they are trying to bring the authorities into the picture, and in all this mess, despite being willing to go to extreme lengths to cut their control and say in the matters they somehow manage to find a scenario where this will reward them for nonimplication.

I wouldn't say all those who use Bitcoin are libertarians with emphasized ideals etc. Most are probably conservatists who just want to make a few bucks and pretend to support this libertarian movement. However, the hypocrisy, if you want, of the latter does favor the former.

[stompix]

Also, who says it's banned? All I know is that they've forbidden mining.

They say:
http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/4348556/index.html
It's about time we get over it, China banned first ICOs, then exchanges, then mining, then financial transactions, then domestic use, there is nothing left that can be banned anymore.

Again this is about countries, not about individuals, that's a whole other thing, individuals for example can move, but I'm yet to see a single forum member moving to Salvador to take advantage of taxes or freedom or opportunities.

Perhaps because there are hundreds of other reasons one won't leave their country?

Exactly my point, people will always think of balances, and you can see pretty well all around you that those willing to make sacrifices for ideals can be counted pretty easily using one hand. Yeah, privacy is nice, yeah it's nice to have freedom, but wait till you reach the stomach area. 
Why is 90% of this world going to a shithole if not because of people thinking short-term and about their won issues first?

I wouldn't say all those who use Bitcoin are libertarians with emphasized ideals etc. Most are probably conservatists who just want to make a few bucks and pretend to support this libertarian movement. However, the hypocrisy, if you want, of the latter does favor the former.

Of course not, if everyone would be a real libertarian we wouldn't be in this mess right now, we wouldn't have a ton of centralized exchanges, we wouldn't have all these hype projects with no meaning but at the same time we wouldn't have any talks about regulations at all or any desire to do so. And I doubt even the conservatism move has more followers, if I would have to nominate the biggest party around now it would be "My wallet to Moon" faction.

[taufik123]

-snip-
So far it is true, they can only do that and can't seem to manage beyond that. So far I feel optimistic that Bitcoin will be even more profitable because the government has opened its eyes to regulations and even collect taxes. Even if in order all transactions can be tracked if ever transactions on exchanges and banks in the form of fiat. In fact I have read if the BTC Mixer service from Coinjoin has also provided support for transactions suspected of money laundering.

Withdrawing taxes on cryptocurrency users will certainly increase the income for the country. it only takes time, Bitcoin or cryptocurrency becomes an important part and becomes the future transaction technology. The regulations given by the government will not be complete.
A lot of positive support has come that makes transactions in cryptocurrencies even better, as you said about the Bitcoin Mixer Coinjoin transaction which is willing to open its user data for those who are indicated as money laundering. But this will remain private.

[d5000]

Conversely, the end of that sentence - "from unhosted wallets" - suggests they are talking about multiple transfers, rather than saying "from an unhosted wallet" if they were talking about a single transfer.

Well, Bitcoin allows to send a (single) transfer to a wallet from several unhosted wallets  

But of course I don't really believe they meant that (I doubt one of the EU parlamentarians knows about SIGHASH and the like, maybe Patrick Breyer or these three MPs). I generally agree with you here, but I have hopes the final document will be a bit more precise.

But with these legislations, even if we can acquire some goods and services, the most basic necessities we are not going to be able to acquire without KYC.

In the last weeks I stumbled upon several businesses I would never thought of that they would receive bitcoin but they do now - mainly a medium-sized (registered) car selling business and a big holiday complex.

Food however may be difficult, as the amounts spent are generally so small amounts that if some supermarket bothers about accepting BTC it will almost certainly use a payment processor which would then require KYC.

Generally, a popular P2P ecommerce platform like OpenBazaar would help a lot with most of these things, as it would show supply and demand more directly than if you have to search each business in the web. I really hope it gets traction again, although for now they're going through difficult times and are barely used.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I've been working under the assumption that centralised exchanges have been on borrowed time for a few years now.

Pretty much this. There have been some that have been able to skirt round the edges of regulation, and some users who have been able to use accounts without completing KYC, but even then your privacy is poor at best. Laws like the one being discussed here will put an end to all that, though. It's full privacy invasion or nothing now.

The best time to stop using centralized exchanges was 10 years ago. The second best time is now.

-snip-

I can only speak for myself, but I have never once wanted more regulations, more laws, more authority involvement, etc., for bitcoin. I despite the mentality of "regulations are good because it means we are being accepted" and other such nonsense. As DooMAD eloquently put it, getting away from centralized control is kind of the whole point of what we are doing here.

[malevolent]

The thing is, bitcoin is not going anyway. If the EU wants to be hostile towards it, then the EU will simply fall behind. And in another 20 years when other countries have huge cryptocurrency sectors built on personal freedom and non-stifling regulations, then the EU will have to play catch up. Their loss.

Unfortunately the global trends are leaning towards less financial freedom, it'll probably be the same in most of the world sooner or later. The EU being a huge market having an influence on other markets doesn't help here either.

If you've used an exchange, you lost your privacy the moment you handed your money to someone else to hold for you.  Total strangers you've never met, or even knew the names of, became acutely aware of you and your wealth because you literally gave it to them.  When you withdraw your funds, they can follow the trail.  And then some of you started attaching your real world identities to this wealth, because they asked you to and you were too indoctrinated to say no.  You said goodbye to privacy a long damn time ago.

I've been working under the assumption that centralised exchanges have been on borrowed time for a few years now.  Which is why I've been staying away from them.  It was always reasonably likely that things were going to turn out this way.  Ultimately, I think it'll be healthier in the long run if fewer people use custodial services like that.  It was concerning to me that so few people actually saw a problem with the amount of trust required and the amount of privacy surrendered, so if people do suddenly feel disincentivised to rely on third parties, I'd say it's about damn time.  It's kinda the whole point of what we're doing here.

Today those that aren't using exchanges or other places requiring the surrendering of privacy are a small shrinking minority, meaning there's less incentive for businesses to cater to them. With increasingly onerous regulations it'll be harder and harder to buy non-DNM related goods and services without self-doxing. At that point for most uses BTC will be no different than electronic fiat money, yes it can't be debased (although global macroeconomics in practice affects its price, too), and it can't be as easily frozen/confiscated, but if you know the HODLer's identity, you can often put pressure on them (from the authorities' point of view), but there will be less freedom to buy/sell/spend compared with cash or commodities such as gold or silver.

https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014823.html

Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own. 

Satoshi

emphasis mine

Even Satoshi didn't have too high a level of expectations, in that regard Bitcoin has been a massive success. The unknown person who replied to Satoshi with "You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography." was partly right, I think. Unfortunately, we the wide Bitcoin community have failed to adequately react in time, especially those of us who have been around for longer. (Whether it would have made enough difference is another matter...)

[o_e_l_e_o]

At that point for most uses BTC will be no different than electronic fiat money, yes it can't be debased (although global macroeconomics in practice affects its price, too), and it can't be as easily frozen/confiscated, but if you know the HODLer's identity, you can often put pressure on them (from the authorities' point of view), but there will be less freedom to buy/sell/spend compared with cash or commodities such as gold or silver.

At that point, bitcoin becomes worse than cash. Bitcoin is great exactly because it is censorship resistant, it can be as private as you want it to be, and it cannot be controlled by third parties. If you are prevented from spending your coins without doxxing yourself to a third party, then bitcoin has failed to be private, be censorship resistant, or to be free from third party control. There have also been attempts (thankfully, all failed) to censor transactions at the mining level by (so far a tiny minority of) miners collaborating with blockchain analysis entities and refusing to mine certain transactions. As I've said before, if I can't spend my bitcoin without completing KYC or without some third party giving me "approval", then for me, bitcoin will have failed. At that point, it is worse than cash, which although based on the terrible fiat system can at least still be spent privately and without third party control.

Unfortunately, we the wide Bitcoin community have failed to adequately react in time, especially those of us who have been around for longer. (Whether it would have made enough difference is another matter...)

I don't think it is too late by any means. There is constant progress being made in terms of peer to peer trading, decentralized exchanges, mixers, privacy wallets and techniques, and so forth. Even without any of these things, if people just stopped throwing their personal information out like confetti then much of this damage could be stopped or even reversed. The problem is all the newbies coming to this space are told by people who have never traded P2P to go sign up with Coinbase or Binance because P2P trading is too "complicated" or they are "more likely to be scammed".

[malevolent]

I don't think it is too late by any means. There is constant progress being made in terms of peer to peer trading, decentralized exchanges, mixers, privacy wallets and techniques, and so forth.

https://twitter.com/wasabiwallet/status/1503091503207432193

Cryptocurrency payment processors are also sometimes asking for KYC, if they aren't, they can be eventually compelled to do so. Even P2P trading and decentralized exchanges can be attacked, e.g. Etherdelta's founder was probably the first case of a dex founder getting fined and the appetite has grown since then.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cryptos-defi-projects-arent-immune-to-regulation-secs-gensler-says-11629365401

“There’s still a core group of folks that are not only writing the software, like the open source software, but they often have governance and fees,” Mr. Gensler said. “There’s some incentive structure for those promoters and sponsors in the middle of this.”

One way or another, I expect for all effort to be pursued to curtail as much of this type of financial activity as possible.

Even without any of these things, if people just stopped throwing their personal information out like confetti then much of this damage could be stopped or even reversed. The problem is all the newbies coming to this space are told by people who have never traded P2P to go sign up with Coinbase or Binance because P2P trading is too "complicated" or they are "more likely to be scammed".

Coinbase, Binance and similar sites are so popular and will remain so because they allow users to buy/sell with less friction than the alternatives.

[o_e_l_e_o]

https://twitter.com/wasabiwallet/status/1503091503207432193

Yes, I'm aware that unfortunately Wasabi have sold out. I've told them exactly what I think about their behavior already: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5391971.msg59741761#msg59741761

Cryptocurrency payment processors are also sometimes asking for KYC, if they aren't, they can be eventually compelled to do so.

Absolutely. Don't even get me started on the clusterfuck that is BitPay. DaveF will tell you how long I can rant about them. This is why the best solution is for merchants to use their own self hosted processor such as BTCPay.

Coinbase, Binance and similar sites are so popular and will remain so because they allow users to buy/sell with less friction than the alternatives.

Depends on how you define "friction". I would say requiring me to give them my name, address, phone number, employment status, information on where my money is coming from and where it is going, copies of my passport and driver's license, selfies, and copies of my latest colonoscopy, to then have to give up custody of my money and still risk being locked out my account and waiting months for support to get back to me to be far more friction than simply finding a well rated user and trading with them directly peer to peer.

[DaveF]

Cryptocurrency payment processors are also sometimes asking for KYC, if they aren't, they can be eventually compelled to do so.

Absolutely. Don't even get me started on the clusterfuck that is BitPay. DaveF will tell you how long I can rant about them. This is why the best solution is for merchants to use their own self hosted processor such as BTCPay.

A lot, he can rant a lot. :-)

Bit of a ramble, but I also think it comes back a bit to philosophy.
I tend to use the "fight the fights you can win" theory when it comes to crypto and IMO  @o_e_l_e_o tends towards the "fight the fights that need fighting"

I don't like BitPay or any of the other intrusive services. But if I can talk a merchant into taking BTC and they don't want to do it themselves there is a limit to what is out there that does not totally rake you over the coals in terms of rates.

So in the end if it's BitPay / Coinbase Commecre / CashApp-Square / or nothing I'll choose to send them to one of those evil KYC places because *I* see it as a win that another merchant takes BTC.

Others that fight the fights that need fighting will see it as a loss since privacy just got slammed.
We need both types of people IMO.

2 side comments about BitPay.
1) They are now starting to take lightning payments
2) Unless you are doing that 1 large purchase that puts you over their somewhat arbitrary limit, they track by email for total spent. Disposable emails do help that issue a bit.

-Dave

[AicecreaME]

Anything decentralized like bitcoin core, electrum, etc. is not affected.

At the end of the day, the person will still need to use some centralized service to be able to spend bitcoin.


I'm not particularly surprised by these measures, this was something expected to happen sooner or later, just seeing that they've been asking for KYC for a long time, so what did people expect? did you expect governments to be in favor of anonymity? what would be the point of just requiring KYC on exchanges and leaving other services without any monitoring or control?

It's really unfortunate that people are slowly being forced into centralization despite bitcoin being decentralized in nature. It's true that the government seeks control in almost every way possible, hence, the central organizations and other financial or exchanger platform under the jurisdiction of the government is mandated to have KYC on their clients. This is their way to regulate if they can't manipulate crypto itself.

Here in our country, you really have to use a centralized exchanger in order to spend or withdraw your bitcoin and other coins. This comes with tax in order for them to profit, of course, and anonymity is already compromised. But this is the sad reality. Sooner or later, verification of identity would be required and not just optional which will defeat the purpose of bitcoin. There may be ways, but hopefully in the future it won't be limited.

[DaveF]

Another somewhat random thought is that yes it all comes down to tax revenue in the end as @AicecreaME said. At least here in the US and wherever they are.

As of now PayPal and Venmo the like in the US for the 2022 tax year now have to issue tax documents when you take in more then $600. It used to be $20,000 and 200 transactions.

There have been people screaming all over they will now have to pay income tax and collect sales on their sales.

Uhhhh, that's the law. Just because you have been running your organic honey and craft beer side business out of your garage and an occasionally a farmers market that does not mean you were not supposed to be paying income and collecting sales tax on your sales.

Sorry but as someone who reports everything and probably more then I should it's not my job to support you because you didn't want to report stuff to the government. Be it for privacy or you just didn't want to pay. Part of what the governments are doing and dragging the payment processors along with them is making sure they get their cut. We can argue about taxes all we want, but for the here and now it's the law of the land.

-Dave