The PATRIOT Act comes to cryptocurrency

[NotATether]

I think it's a really cool idea and we should try to find a way to do it for this act too.

I don't think so. They will simply ignore any AI generated content, and all it does is water down genuine comments and complaints.

I'm pretty sure a lot of normal people are going to fall into a quagmire while trying to write a proper formal letter to a government entity. So do you really think something like the following would be ignored?

Dear Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department,

I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed regulations outlined in the PDF document titled "Gross Proceeds and Basis Reporting by Brokers and Determination of Amount Realized and Basis for Digital Asset Transactions." Specifically, I would like to address the topics of privacy and poorly defined terms.

Firstly, I am deeply concerned about the privacy and safety implications of allowing multiple third parties to have access to my sensitive financial data and social security number. The proposed regulations would require brokers, including digital asset trading platforms, digital asset payment processors, and certain digital asset hosted wallets, to file information returns and furnish payee statements on dispositions of digital assets. This would potentially expose my personal information to numerous entities, which raises significant privacy and security risks.

Furthermore, I find the definitions of certain terms in the proposed regulations to be poorly defined. For instance, terms such as "platform," "software," and "ledger" are left undefined, leaving room for multiple interpretations. Additionally, the definitions of terms like "wallet" and "validator" do not accurately describe their technical meanings, leading to potential confusion and inconsistent application of the regulations.

I believe it is crucial for regulations of this nature to provide clear and precise definitions to ensure consistency and understanding among all stakeholders. Vague and loosely defined terms can lead to misinterpretation and hinder compliance with the regulations.

In conclusion, I urge you to reconsider the implications on privacy and security that may arise from these proposed regulations. Additionally, I strongly recommend providing clearly defined terms to avoid confusion and promote consistent interpretation and application.

Thank you for considering my concerns. I trust that you will take these issues into account when finalizing the regulations.

Sincerely,
<name>

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this when I look at it from a first glance. Also it's not like it's serving the same letter to everybody, the sentences and vocabulary are slightly different for each.

[1714306366]

1714306366

[Lucius]

~snip~
A much easier option than that in the short term is just to close all your KYCed accounts and use bitcoin peer to peer as it was intended in the first place. Long term I would say leaving the US is a good plan for a whole host of reasons, given the mass surveillance machine the US government has turned in to.

If someone decides to leave, it would be very good to do a thorough research about the country to which they want to move, because although surveillance in the US went to a completely different level after the terrorist attacks, it is not better in other parts of the world either.

I watched a documentary about how the police in the UK use some kind of AI for facial recognition, and with the help of cameras on vehicles, they try to detect potential terrorists, and the vehicles with these cameras are parked in the middle of city centers where thousands of people pass by. Imagine you're walking with your family/friends and then the police grab you and take you for an extra check because the AI has marked you as suspicious and all the other people are looking at you and wondering if you're really a terrorist.

What I want to say is that there are much worse places in the world when it comes to limiting and endangering human freedoms than is the case in the US, only that a perception has been created that Big Brother is still the biggest in the world's largest democracy.

[avp2306]

I would encourage people, as I have always done, do trade exclusively peer to peer and to never complete KYC anywhere, so there are no third parties which can track all your bitcoin and share that information with anyone they like.

Yeah its good to do peer to peer transaction if there's a lot of people using crypto on where are but if there's few people using it then we don't have a choice but to engage with those Kyc compliant platforms. Its hard situation to get track but we can't do anything if the only option we have is to engage with those KYC platforms.

Everything I've seen come out of the EU in relation to bitcoin has been just as bad/stupid/misguided/idiotic as what our government in the US spits out. This kind of mass surveillance of bitcoin will only spread if we don't fight to put a stop to it.

Just like they make it a normal habit to spit some bad words against bitcoin and we can't do anything with those old dudes believing some negative about its existence, but for sure they will eat all the words they spit against it once bitcoin will get massive adaption and for sure this guys will change their minds especially they see its real potential.

[suzanne5223]

this is also one of the reasons why I am scared of the Bitcoin spot ETF despite its going to increase the crypto market cap because it could be the weapon to treats bitcoin as non-fungible or I am I the only thinking about this?

People must be know if Bitcoin ETF is an IOU, where they not hold the real coins and trust the institutions to hold their coins. I think it's not a problem as long as people fine with that, this what freedom to choose is where you can choose to trust your coins with institutions or buy a real coins and hold it in your own wallet.

The Bitcoin ETF will work just like IOU because the institution and the government never like decentralization. Besides, I read an article today where BlackRock said it will seed its Bitcoin ETF with its own fund.
As you said, it's a matter of choosing but the way their Bitcoin spot ETF will be operated is going to treat BTC as non-fungible, and also believe very soon KYC will be made compulsory for every crypto-related transaction after the ETF approval.

[Darker45]

I'm curious now, will you, then, encourage that people don't declare their Bitcoin holdings?

I would encourage people, as I have always done, do trade exclusively peer to peer and to never complete KYC anywhere, so there are no third parties which can track all your bitcoin and share that information with anyone they like.

But can the IRS be trusted that it won't share sensitive information with its fellow government agencies? And should we decide that we won't be declaring any Bitcoin holdings, which I am doing right now, and trade exclusively peer-to-peer, are we then limited to the option of transacting face to face and on cold cash basis? Because peer-to-peer transactions which involve the likes of PayPal, bank transfers, and the rest of online payment options are almost pointless because they always ask for personal information.

[Plaguedeath]

Yeah its good to do peer to peer transaction if there's a lot of people using crypto on where are but if there's few people using it then we don't have a choice but to engage with those Kyc compliant platforms. Its hard situation to get track but we can't do anything if the only option we have is to engage with those KYC platforms.

You don't have to trade through direct P2P with real people, you can trade through DEX or no KYC P2P. I'm not sure where you come from, but you can useBisq (mostly trade for EUR, USD, BRL, GBP, CAD, AUD, or CZK), you can also use Agoradesk since it's wider than Bisq.

Because peer-to-peer transactions which involve the likes of PayPal, bank transfers, and the rest of online payment options are almost pointless because they always ask for personal information.

Are you trade big amount of money? I never face any problem when deal with P2P trade by using bank transfers, usually I cash out my money once a month.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The Bitcoin ETF will work just like IOU because the institution and the government never like decentralization.

This is clearly the future the government want for bitcoin. The majority just buy ETF IOUs. Those who do actually buy bitcoin can only do through via KYCed exchanges, and their bitcoin can only move from there to other KYCed exchanges. Actually owning your own bitcoin won't be allowed - after all, what are you trying to hide?

But can the IRS be trusted that it won't share sensitive information with its fellow government agencies?

They will, of course. All branches of the government freely share all the information they have on you with each other.

are we then limited to the option of transacting face to face and on cold cash basis?

If you want no traces left in the fiat system, then cash in person is the best way to do it, yes. I've done this for years. It works well.

[apogio]

Actually owning your own bitcoin won't be allowed

which will give more value to the BTC you actually own.

If you want no traces left in the fiat system, then cash in person is the best way to do it, yes. I've done this for years. It works well.

not very easy, at least not everywhere on the planet.

the share holders just buy and sell shares into and out of fiat. without ever touching bitcoin

so? why can't they freely do so if the wish? I mean it's their problem after all. Meanwhile, we can hold our own keys and keep doing what we want.

[o_e_l_e_o]

As a reminder:

Any further nonsense from franky1 will be deleted. Please keep this on-topic.

You can see DooMADs post here for an explanation why: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5471353.msg63048733#msg63048733


There are now over 120 comments on the proposal, but still only two are viewable. I wonder why they have chosen to withhold so many of the comments?

which will give more value to the BTC you actually own.

Maybe, but it still creates a two tier system which is bad for bitcoin on the whole, even if I never interact with any of these custodial services.

[apogio]

You can see DooMADs post here for an explanation why: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5471353.msg63048733#msg63048733

Ook sorry!

Maybe, but it still creates a two tier system which is bad for bitcoin on the whole, even if I never interact with any of these custodial services.

I have the same point of view but I try to also understand people who will prefer buying ETFs rather than self custody bitcoin. Anyway, my point is nothing forces us to interact with those services. At least I hope so

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Maybe, but it still creates a two tier system which is bad for bitcoin on the whole, even if I never interact with any of these custodial services.

I have the same point of view but I try to also understand people who will prefer buying ETFs rather than self custody bitcoin. Anyway, my point is nothing forces us to interact with those services. At least I hope so

What I see here is that governments, once they have realised that bitcoin is unstoppable, are interested in people owning them with custodial services, such as ETFs, which could be seized at any given moment, as opposed to people getting used to holding their bitcoins with their private keys.  That way, something like Executive Order 6102 would be much more easily enforceable.

I'm sure there were those at the time who had small gold pieces that they were able to hide and save from seizure, but they would be of little use to them, unless they could find someone trustworthy to do a P2P deal, unlikely at the time, and the most they could do is hold out until possession was legal again, which, given that it was legal in the 1970s, they might have been dead by then.

This legislation is bad news.

[Darker45]

Because peer-to-peer transactions which involve the likes of PayPal, bank transfers, and the rest of online payment options are almost pointless because they always ask for personal information.

Are you trade big amount of money? I never face any problem when deal with P2P trade by using bank transfers, usually I cash out my money once a month.

I have not encountered any problem with it as well, so far at least. But if the point is privacy and completely staying away from KYC, I'm afraid this kind of transaction isn't an option. Even if you choose P2P all the time, if you're receiving or sending money through banks whenever you sell or buy Bitcoin, respectively, your identity is still known and you can easily be traced. That's why I'm seeing it as somehow pointless. A third party is still involved and that party has your complete personal information.

[suzanne5223]

The Bitcoin ETF will work just like IOU because the institution and the government never like decentralization.

This is clearly the future the government want for bitcoin. The majority just buy ETF IOUs. Those who do actually buy bitcoin can only do through via KYCed exchanges, and their bitcoin can only move from there to other KYCed exchanges. Actually owning your own bitcoin won't be allowed - after all, what are you trying to hide?

The exact thing they are hiding is still unknown to the general public but it's glaring that know the potential of Bitcoin, they also know that people investing in it are inevitable, and approving the spot ETF will give them international competitiveness, economic gain, and regulatory control that's why they will want to the ETF to IOU form of investment.

[digaran]

Tools that allow you to reclaim your financial privacy like Samourai Wallet (a powerful, privacy-preserving wallet for Bitcoin) and Monero (a cryptocurrency that protects sender, receiver, and amount in every transaction) are indispensable tools for freedom, and should be something you practice with regularly, no matter what the state says.

That should be a joke, or is this another samourai we are talking about? I haven't verified this, but apparently they work for microsoft and ban sanctioned countries.
Ever since the invention of CCTVs, and smart phones, achieving privacy has become expensive, you can have it, but you have to pay the price.
One thing our mentally happy elites running the governments can't understand is the fact that, more you censor and try to control people, more privacy oriented projects such as Monero, Tor etc would gain adoption, they don't realize that they are slowly digging their own graves.

[Abiky]

https://freedom.tech/patriot-act-comes-to-cryptocurrency/

A fantastic article authored by Seth For Privacy (https://nitter.cz/sethforprivacy), who is the Head of Strategy & Marketing for Foundation Devices, known for their Passport hardware wallet.

As I've mentioned in another thread, and as Seth explains in this article, this newest piece of legislation is an outright attack on bitcoin. It is clear the US government want the only way to use bitcoin to be through fully KYCed centralized exchanges. They are trying their hardest to absorb bitcoin in to the existing fiat system and surveillance state, and destroy the very thing that bitcoin is.

What can you do about it? Get your coins off of any centralized exchange and in to your own wallet. Close your KYCed accounts and refuse to ever complete KYC again. Use privacy tools. Anonymize your coins. Refuse to use any service or product which treats bitcoin as non-fungible and discriminates against or censors certain coins. Bitcoin was not made to become an off-shoot of the fiat system, to be another tool by which the government can can surveil, censor, and control. And if you happen to live in the US, start contacting your representatives about this draconian piece of legislation.

https://bitcoiner.guide/nokyconly/
https://kycnot.me/


Spam will be deleted.

The Biden Administration has been fighting against crypto real hard with its strict regulations. First it was Tornado.Cash, then the SEC's aggresive stance towards crypto (by classifying almost every digital asset as a security), and now the enforcement of KYC/AML across all crypto exchanges. I've read somewhere that the US Treasury Department wants to target crypto mixers as they can be used by Hamas for money laundering/terrorist financing. Isn't Fiat currencies like the USD and EUR used for said purpose? All of this could stifle innovation/growth for the crypto industry in the long run.

I believe the US government is doing this because it doesn't want people to embrace the full benefits of decentralization + censorship-resistance that comes with using Bitcoin. If this keeps up, people will end up trading BTC through P2P or truly-decentralized exchanges. It will be a "headache" for the government, because it's much harder to identify people using these alternatives (after all, there's no KYC). One can only imagine the US government will eventually "ban" Bitcoin like it banned Gold a few decades ago. I really hope Americans in support of crypto stand against the new legislation for the healthy growth of the industry. Who knows what will happen in the future?

[o_e_l_e_o]

That should be a joke, or is this another samourai we are talking about? I haven't verified this, but apparently they work for microsoft and ban sanctioned countries.

You have entirely misunderstood that post. It is GitHub which was acquired by Microsoft, not Samourai. The only coinjoin implementation which bans certain coins is Wasabi.

I've read somewhere that the US Treasury Department wants to target crypto mixers as they can be used by Hamas for money laundering/terrorist financing.

This is just the usual nonsense from the government misusing some current event to justify their mass surveillance machine. The evidence shows Hamas have raised barely any money via cryptocurrency: https://nitter.cz/nic__carter/status/1717210060777009636#m

One can only imagine the US government will eventually "ban" Bitcoin like it banned Gold a few decades ago.

Good luck confiscating bitcoin like they confiscated gold. I unfortunately lost all my private keys in an unfortunate boating accident.

[apogio]

Good luck confiscating bitcoin like they confiscated gold. I unfortunately lost all my private keys in an unfortunate boating accident.

Oh, me too. I guess boating accidents happen quite often nowadays, or perhaps we 've been in the same accident.

Seriously though:

One can only imagine the US government will eventually "ban" Bitcoin like it banned Gold a few decades ago.

How exactly do you think they can bitcoin? I don't judge you, I ask for a reasonable way to do it. You will realise that one of the reasons why Bitcoin is superior to Gold is this. They can't confiscate Bitcoin like gold, unless of course they ban the internet everywhere on planet earth.

P.S Even if they ban internet on the planet, thanks to blockstream satellite (https://blockstream.com/satellite/), Bitcoin may survive. 

[Three Millionth User]

Good luck confiscating bitcoin like they confiscated gold. I unfortunately lost all my private keys in an unfortunate boating accident.

Could you share some details?

I'm really curious. I know several similar stories from the news, but I have never met a person who could just talk about it like that. I don’t know what amount we’re talking about, but I think your sense of regret is simply immeasurable. My condolences! In the end, everything that doesn't happen happens for the better.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Could you share some details?

I took all my hard drives, hardware wallets, paper wallets, steel engravings, and other back ups out with me for my semi-regular camping trip. I think it's good for them to get some fresh air now and then and feel the wind in their circuits. I like to sail to a secluded island in the middle of a nearby lake where I definitely haven't buried my 8 tonnes of gold (which were previously in my basement until I also unfortunately lost that in a tragic boating accident). Unfortunately my boat sank since I hadn't bothered to repair it after it sank three months ago, and I lost everything, including the map to the gold I don't have.

I'm not too beat up about it because I hadn't accumulated too much since I last lost all my keys in the aforementioned identical accident three months ago.

[bbc.reporter]

I had a similar argument against someone before about self custody and how the government wants to take this away from us. It appears this thread might teach him.

There are also news updates that treasury officials want congress to help fight against the illegal use of the cryptospace. If congress agrees then there might have more laws against self custody, there will be stricter KYC and there will certainly be a certain classification of people who will be banned from using the cryptospace.

However, everything from the treasury department is allegedly without the promise of showing proof.



A senior Treasury Department official said the Biden administration wants new powers from Congress to aid in a crackdown on the illicit use of cryptocurrencies, citing digital asset flows allegedly connected to Palestinian militant group Hamas.

Treasury has been in communication with Democrats and Republicans about actions that they could take, Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo said Tuesday in Washington at the annual meeting of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group.

Source https://www.wsj.com/articles/congress-must-aid-fight-against-illicit-use-of-crypto-treasury-official-says-1bebab02