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

[Abiky]

After yesterday's vote of the European Parliament committee, I have become very pessimistic:
...

...

Everything is changing before our eyes in the digital currency industry. With bans on anonymous transactions well underway, the U.S. SEC circling the likes of Ripple and Tether, and Satoshi’s Bitcoin slowly being understood as an electronic cash system designed for small casual payments that works within the law and which is always subject to it, things are ever so slowly changing for the better. If the EU votes to pass the new rules, it will be another nail in the coffin for the false narrative plaguing the industry[/i]."

And the problem with this is that it sets a precedent and entrenches a trend of increasing state control.

What do you think about it? Are you as pessimistic as me or this article?

Edit: go to page 2 for the key proposals of the draft.

Also: PLEASE REALIZE THAT franky's ARGUMENTS ARE GARBAGE. As they are based on a former draft on a slightly different subject, that didn't pass, as I've shown on page 2.

This was to be expected since governments often see crypto as a threat to the existence of Fiat. The EU decided to "up" their game as they believe crypto can be used by Russians to avoid sanctions. Other countries are tightening regulations for the same reason. Privacy in crypto/Blockchain land was relatively non-existent since centralized exchanges and transparent cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum have dominated the industry for long. There are only a few privacy-oriented solutions, but adoption is relatively low.

What matters is that crypto stays decentralized so that it can stand the test of time. As long as there are defenders of privacy and decentralization, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts

[1715437923]

1715437923

[1715437923]

1715437923

[swogerino]

After this horrible thing happened it is great for at least the UK is out of the Eurozone and there are a couple of exchanges there which can offer to withdraw money to your bank account or a crypto wallet that you own,Cex being one of them and I did a transaction as a test compared to other exchanges in the EU,it passed without problems to my bank account the money and also to my crypto wallet.I think we need more countries like this who do not give a damn about what Europe does.

[horrifiedx1]

After this horrible thing happened it is great for at least the UK is out of the Eurozone and there are a couple of exchanges there which can offer to withdraw money to your bank account or a crypto wallet that you own,Cex being one of them and I did a transaction as a test compared to other exchanges in the EU,it passed without problems to my bank account the money and also to my crypto wallet.I think we need more countries like this who do not give a damn about what Europe does.

right, they simplify the rules regarding the use of cryptocurrencies, so that it will be easier to develop and develop their society regarding technological developments that are currently happening as well as opportunities to improve the personal economy which has an impact on improving the country's economy, even though what the UK is doing is an extreme measure, but this will be better for their people

[stepwilli]

After this horrible thing happened it is great for at least the UK is out of the Eurozone and there are a couple of exchanges there which can offer to withdraw money to your bank account or a crypto wallet that you own,Cex being one of them and I did a transaction as a test compared to other exchanges in the EU,it passed without problems to my bank account the money and also to my crypto wallet.I think we need more countries like this who do not give a damn about what Europe does.

I am not entirely sure, Europe is just way too big to ignore, I get that people could continue to do whatever they want if they are not in Europe, but I doubt governments could get a better economical situation if they just simply get Europe against them.

You have two options, either make the crypto people in your nation happy while facing Europe, or you could act natural to Europe and try to get help from them financially while facing your crypto people. I think most nations will pick Europe over their own crypto people. Doesn't mean that it is the right choice, but it is the known choice and they will go with the devil you know type of deal instead.

[mindrust]

After this horrible thing happened it is great for at least the UK is out of the Eurozone and there are a couple of exchanges there which can offer to withdraw money to your bank account or a crypto wallet that you own,Cex being one of them and I did a transaction as a test compared to other exchanges in the EU,it passed without problems to my bank account the money and also to my crypto wallet.I think we need more countries like this who do not give a damn about what Europe does.

Being in a union cuts both ways. When you are out of it, you can't benefit from the advantages like tax agreements and that returns you higher import prices. However you can create competition by making more investor friendly laws and that will attract more investors like how UK done here.

It seems to me decentralization is a good thing even on a country level.

The more independent countries we have, the more competition we have. The more competition we have, the more investor-friendly laws we get and that means the world government will never work out. Globalism is a fad.

[Waddle]

Cryptocurrency provides the features of anonymity which might be seen as a threat to many governments. We can not deny that the feature of anonymity will always serve good.

[Abiky]

Being in a union cuts both ways. When you are out of it, you can't benefit from the advantages like tax agreements and that returns you higher import prices. However you can create competition by making more investor friendly laws and that will attract more investors like how UK done here.

It seems to me decentralization is a good thing even on a country level.

The more independent countries we have, the more competition we have. The more competition we have, the more investor-friendly laws we get and that means the world government will never work out. Globalism is a fad.

Yes. Competition is needed in order to help prevent "globalism" from destroying crypto in its entirety. Some governments may become oppressive against crypto/Blockchain tech, but others will embrace it with open arms. I guess the EU doesn't want to be at the forefront of crypto innovation. Privacy is a human right, which is something crypto originally stands for. Without that, how would people experience true financial freedom?

We're going to have to see how this will end in the long run, as the crypto/Blockchain industry grows at a fast pace. The more popular it becomes, the more governments will be forced to adopt the "revolution". As long as decentralization wins, we should have nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts

[aoluain]

snip.

CBDC is and will always be 100% centralized and you can't and will never be able to have any kind of privacy using it. In a sense it is no different than using banks as you already do. The bill on the other hand is targeting centralized services which doesn't affect bitcoin or "all aspects of people's financial activity".
Bitcoin on the other hand will always be decentralized and nobody can control it or your transactions. All they can do is to control big centralized places like a payment processor that shouldn't even exist in bitcoin ecosystem, or exchanges and such. But for example they can never force a supermarket that accepts bitcoin to ask for KYC when someone pays for a bag of chips.

snip

Thats exactly it, I said before that governments can only affect the usage of Bitcoin
through the entry and exit points - exchanges

After yesterday's vote of the European Parliament committee, I have become very pessimistic:
...

...

Everything is changing before our eyes in the digital currency industry. With bans on anonymous transactions well underway, the U.S. SEC circling the likes of Ripple and Tether, and Satoshi’s Bitcoin slowly being understood as an electronic cash system designed for small casual payments that works within the law and which is always subject to it, things are ever so slowly changing for the better. If the EU votes to pass the new rules, it will be another nail in the coffin for the false narrative plaguing the industry[/i]."

And the problem with this is that it sets a precedent and entrenches a trend of increasing state control.

What do you think about it? Are you as pessimistic as me or this article?

Edit: go to page 2 for the key proposals of the draft.

Also: PLEASE REALIZE THAT franky's ARGUMENTS ARE GARBAGE. As they are based on a former draft on a slightly different subject, that didn't pass, as I've shown on page 2.

This was to be expected since governments often see crypto as a threat to the existence of Fiat. The EU decided to "up" their game as they believe crypto can be used by Russians to avoid sanctions. Other countries are tightening regulations for the same reason. Privacy in crypto/Blockchain land was relatively non-existent since centralized exchanges and transparent cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum have dominated the industry for long. There are only a few privacy-oriented solutions, but adoption is relatively low.

What matters is that crypto stays decentralized so that it can stand the test of time. As long as there are defenders of privacy and decentralization, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts

If everyone who is serious about Bitcoin embraces more the idea if decentralisation and seeks
out privacy orientated solutions we can bypass these crazy laws.

As regards these new laws they have to have a negative effect on crypto development in
the EU, I wonder will future bureaucrats vote to abolish these backwards looking laws when
they realise that all the reasons why they are implimenting these laws still exist in the future.

[Abiky]

If everyone who is serious about Bitcoin embraces more the idea if decentralisation and seeks
out privacy orientated solutions we can bypass these crazy laws.

As regards these new laws they have to have a negative effect on crypto development in
the EU, I wonder will future bureaucrats vote to abolish these backwards looking laws when
they realise that all the reasons why they are implimenting these laws still exist in the future.

Agree. But not everyone is knowledgeable about crypto/Blockchain tech, so most people will give away their privacy as long as they get convenience in return. While it's technically possible to "bypass the crazy laws", I wouldn't recommend doing so since that would mean facing jail time or fines by the government. Of course, privacy is a human right. But you would have to decide whenever you want to sacrifice your freedom to obtain privacy/anonymity or all the other way around. There's always a way of getting caught even if you use the most decentralized and anonymous methods ever devised.

Sadly, governments will continue to implement stricter regulations against crypto/Blockchain tech in order to stay in power. Fiat will always prevail because it has the backing of governments and central banks. We'll see how EU's moves against crypto will turn out to be in the long run. Innovation/growth will surely diminish within EU-based countries, forcing investors to go elsewhere with their money. As long as crypto stays decentralized, nothing else matters. Just my thoughts

[m2017]

Sadly, governments will continue to implement stricter regulations against crypto/Blockchain tech in order to stay in power.

Undoubtedly governments will continue to try to regulate crypto. Will they be able to fully succeed, that is the question. In principle, people don't need their permission or approval to use crypto, and nothing prevents them from using it explicitly.

Fiat will always prevail because it has the backing of governments and central banks.

And here I disagree with you. Fiat forms of money are already being rapidly superseded by the digital version as more and more people pay with plastic cards and mobile apps. The proportion of people still paying with cash has been decreasing every year and will continue to decrease. And since fiat is practically impossible to control (just try to track the movement between people) and is 100% anonymous (there is no binding of banknotes to a specific person), then with the departure of fiat, society's finances will turn out to be more controllable and traceable.

We'll see how EU's moves against crypto will turn out to be in the long run.

Actually, it's quite predictable. Nothing good is expected, because it is not profitable for governments if people use crypto on a massive scale. Therefore, they will prohibit, limit and demand taxes from this.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Will they be able to fully succeed, that is the question.

Succeed in what? Regulating it? They've overstated with KYC in centralized exchanges, wherein most of the users buy and sell from. They already have enough information to control them. Part of the United States' national spending goes straight to Chainalysis.

Fiat forms of money are already being rapidly superseded by the digital version

Whether you pay in cash, via bank account or via PayPal, it's the same currency. In fact, using fiat digitally is traceable. Much better for a government.

[n0nce]

Fiat forms of money are already being rapidly superseded by the digital version

Whether you pay in cash, via bank account or via PayPal, it's the same currency. In fact, using fiat digitally is traceable. Much better for a government.

I think m2017 is a little bit confused about the definition of Fiat here. With 'Fiat forms of money', he means paper and coins. Cash is actually pretty much anonymous, indeed.

We'll see how EU's moves against crypto will turn out to be in the long run.

Actually, it's quite predictable. Nothing good is expected, because it is not profitable for governments if people use crypto on a massive scale. Therefore, they will prohibit, limit and demand taxes from this.

This is an interesting topic that you brought up; we've got a bunch of historic examples of prohibition and they didn't all really work out to be honest. So I agree that governments don't like to lose control over the money, but I'm not sure whether they dare to try the prohibitionist route, it can be quite risky.

Prohibitionism is a legal philosophy and political theory often used in lobbying which holds that citizens will abstain from actions if the actions are typed as unlawful (i.e. prohibited) and the prohibitions are enforced by law enforcement.

Generally, prohibition is not completely effective, and tends to drive the market underground instead.

Honestly, I believe prohibition of Bitcoin could actually have the chance to become the biggest driver of innovation in privacy tools and developments in and on top of BTC.

[DooMAD]

Honestly, I believe prohibition of Bitcoin could actually have the chance to become the biggest driver of innovation in privacy tools and developments in and on top of BTC.

Yep.  I think that's the reason most places haven't come down super-hard on Bitcoin.  If they drive usage underground, it becomes more resilient by nature.  So instead they chip away gently with KYC at the on/off ramps.

[franky1]

circa 2009-2014 bitcoin remained outside the realms of government jurisdiction.
it was by nature classified as a product/good(asset) where traders were dealt with as private citizens and merchants.

then when it became declared 'currency'(asset) it then became within the realm of jurisdiction of government regulation. because CURRENCY fell into the regulations of SEC/FINRA/FINCEN/FCA

where by traders were deemed not as private citizens/merchants, but as MSB(money service businesses)
..

the next rabbit out of the hat. is accepting taxes/court fines/lobbying/political campaigns and other government payments in crypto. which is the 'legal tender' side of things.
the negative affect is that this also comes with more regulations directly impacting the usage of crypto falling into the jurisdiction of governments.
EG needing to KYC payments and tracing of taint to make sure that laundering and criminal activity is not linked to funds received by legit payment services.

..
in short when people got excited that countries were recognising crypto as a currency and then deeming it as legal tender.. those 2 events have and will come with negative consequences.

bitcoin would have been better off without the 'currency' and 'legal tender' recognition by governments.
we (as crypto users) would still use it the same in trade and exchange. but the laws of 'currency' and 'legal tender' would not apply

EG
a car is not currency.. its a store of value that can be traded.. and by not being 'currency' even though people trade cars every day.. and think of cars as an investment. fincen and SEC dont get involved in car trades

[Gyfts]

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.

They won't be able to ban bitcoins and worldwide users like I know they will try to manage bitcoins/ want to embrace bitcoins and drag bitcoins with them because they crave and want bitcoins but obviously  Obviously, they won't be able to do that.  The evolution of always open, decentralized technology will welcome the world in the next few years.

When geopolitics has alliances, why can't bitcoin have coalitions from countries that are considering bitcoin's legitimacy in the future?  Whether the government of each country is urgent with regulations or not, it has been proven through the history of the development of bitcoin.

My concern is that the major players (US, EU, China) will either collude with one another to oust Bitcoin or act independently to regulate all cryptocurrencies to such a degree that investors flock to other assets. At that point, it'll be impossible for the rest of the world to compete and out maneuver the larger economies because of how much capital they control. There aren't enough day-to-day users of Bitcoin that would allow the price to be maintained (at it's ATH or lower) if the institutional investors are gone.

I wouldn't mind seeing a pro-BTC coalition. Problem is that most countries are on the wrong side of the issue.

[franky1]

I wouldn't mind seeing a pro-BTC coalition. Problem is that most countries are on the wrong side of the issue.

depends what you mean..

africa has more population than the EU,UK and US combined.
yep eu=450m, US 330m, uk 70m=850m
africa=1.2bill


so if africa was to become pro bitcoin. then they can outpace the userbase of the US/EU market that currently dominates bitcoin.

south america has more population than the US OR EU

asia has more population than the rest of the world.. so excluding china. still leaves 3billion people that outpace majority of any 'developed' nations combined..

the only issue is not regulation worry of developed countries.. but the very fact that the over half the world population that could have used bitcoin the most(poor/unbanked).but cant use it due to not government politics but developer politics of not wanting bitcoin to be 'digital cash for the unbanked'

its the dev politics that want bitcoin to be a government recognised 'world reserve' where its recognised enough to 'go legit' and be regulated. which then also has consequences as described in my previous post..

many people in this topic have mentioned or atleast thought 'where is the lobbying to fight against regulation..'  well the main exchanges are not fighting against regulation. the main exchanges are already regulated because they handle fiat. and so regulating crypto is not a hurdle for them. infact they now see it as a benefit. as it stops new players becoming competitors by having a barrier of entry.
yep most exchanges want regulation because it 'legitimises' their operation and makes them have a corporate level of 'trust' in their custodianship while preventing new competitors from just swooping in and stealing their customers.
so if your wondering where the exchanges have been.. they have been lobbying to governments. but lobbying for regulation. not against it

[Gyfts]

I wouldn't mind seeing a pro-BTC coalition. Problem is that most countries are on the wrong side of the issue.

depends what you mean..

africa has more population than the EU,UK and US combined.
yep eu=450m, US 330m, uk 70m=850m
africa=1.2bill

many people in this topic have mentioned or atleast thought 'where is the lobbying to fight against regulation..'  well the main exchanges are not fighting against regulation. the main exchanges are already regulated because they handle fiat. and so regulating crypto is not a hurdle for them. infact they now see it as a benefit. as it stops new players becoming competitors by having a barrier of entry.
yep most exchanges want regulation because it 'legitimises' their operation and makes them have a corporate level of 'trust' in their custodianship while preventing new competitors from just swooping in and stealing their customers.
so if your wondering where the exchanges have been.. they have been lobbying to governments. but lobbying for regulation. not against it

I mean strictly from economic power, so taking the GDP of the top countries instead of on a per capita basis. Even if the population of Africa might be greater than other regions, if African spending power isn't enough, then they can't use Bitcoin at the volume they'd need in order to compete with the larger economies. Meaning, if the US/EU/UK/China banned Bitcoin, I don't think Africa or some other Asian countries could carry Bitcoin alone.

I agree that most exchanges don't need to lobby against regulations. They're already so regulated that there's no point in lobbying against it. Damage is done.

[n0nce]

Even if the population of Africa might be greater than other regions, if African spending power isn't enough, then they can't use Bitcoin at the volume they'd need in order to compete with the larger economies. Meaning, if the US/EU/UK/China banned Bitcoin, I don't think Africa or some other Asian countries could carry Bitcoin alone.

This makes no sense; Bitcoin doesn't care about what volume is transacted. In fact, a transaction spending 1BTC or one spending 0.01BTC are almost identical on the blockchain. And running nodes is very inexpensive and easy to do, as well - one of the greatest advantages of Bitcoin over other cryptocurrencies which need expensive hardware and networking. This is essential to run Bitcoin infrastructure in developing countries, like franky mentioned earlier.

Here is my thread about building a node from spare and used parts under $50: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5364742.0

So I don't understand what you mean with 'Africa or some other Asian countries could [not] carry Bitcoin alone'.

[goldkingcoiner]

I see this as a good thing. Not only will this put centralisation into the meat grinder but it will also force us to find better ways to decentralise. The government has been trying as hard as they can to put Bitcoin and other crypto into a corner and has never succeeded. Centralised exchanges are and always have been a bad idea which goes against what crypto, especially Bitcoin, stands for.

Now is the time for more innovation in the area of decentralisation and DeFi especially.

Our governments have absolutely no control over our coins unless we give them control. Do not let them spook you into giving up control.

Never give up, never surrender.

[uneng]

After this horrible thing happened it is great for at least the UK is out of the Eurozone and there are a couple of exchanges there which can offer to withdraw money to your bank account or a crypto wallet that you own,Cex being one of them and I did a transaction as a test compared to other exchanges in the EU,it passed without problems to my bank account the money and also to my crypto wallet.I think we need more countries like this who do not give a damn about what Europe does.

I am not entirely sure, Europe is just way too big to ignore, I get that people could continue to do whatever they want if they are not in Europe, but I doubt governments could get a better economical situation if they just simply get Europe against them.

You have two options, either make the crypto people in your nation happy while facing Europe, or you could act natural to Europe and try to get help from them financially while facing your crypto people. I think most nations will pick Europe over their own crypto people. Doesn't mean that it is the right choice, but it is the known choice and they will go with the devil you know type of deal instead.

It's just a matter of time until every countries in the world have their own strict regulations against crypto. Actually, it was already expected to happen in 2022 since years ago, including in my country, which isn't in Europe. I'm also fearful about the decisions being taken by authorities, because it's certain common users will suffer the most, be it through abusive taxes, excessive bureaucracy or total invasion of privacy.

The only example of country we have which apparently stood against bureaucrats interests was El Salvador and they are in a very delicate situation with IMF. The bureaucrats used El Salvador example to teach a lesson to another countries not follow the same steps of the small central american country. Unfortunatelly they may have success, because what countries would be crazy to exchange the support and loans from IMF for adopting a friendly stance towards a volatile digital currency which can bring losses on short-medium term for investors?