The PATRIOT Act comes to cryptocurrency

[bbc.reporter]

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.

As I've said before, this is the clear direction the US government is heading in. They want the only bitcoin to be bitcoin which is bought on fully KYCed exchanges, stored on fully KYCed exchanges, and not sent anywhere except to other fully KYCed exchanges. They want complete control over everything that you "own", and they want complete surveillance of everything that you do. As with this piece of legislation, using any non-KYCed service will be illegal. Hell, even holding your own coins will be illegal.

I understand this has already started in other countries. For example this news story from a few days ago: https://www.nobsbitcoin.com/gemini-uk-to-prohibit-regular-bitcoin-transactions/

Are you implying that under America's jurisdiction, much of bitcoin will be a sanctioned currency where only the addresses that the government approves will be allowed to send and receive coins? This is headshaking, however, I also cannot disagree if we consider reailty. I reckon Monero does not solve this also because the American government can ban it within their jurisdiction and order a crackdown on any exchange that accepts it.

In any case, similar to your ideas, terrorist funding will be the next big storyline that will be used against the cryptospace.

[1714246001]

1714246001

[1714246001]

1714246001

[o_e_l_e_o]

Are you implying that under America's jurisdiction, much of bitcoin will be a sanctioned currency where only the addresses that the government approves will be allowed to send and receive coins?

I mean, I don't think I need to imply this - it's already happening. They quite clearly want bitcoin to only be used via fully KYCed exchanges. Just read the proposals. They have even deliberately chosen the words they use to make anything else sound negative. It's no longer "self custody", but rather "non-hosted wallets".

In any case, similar to your ideas, terrorist funding will be the next big storyline that will be used against the cryptospace.

Terrorists, foreign governments, criminals, un-patriotic, what are you trying to hide, tHiNk Of ThE cHiLdReN, and a whole variety of other pearl clutching nonsense.

[cryptosize]

Are you implying that under America's jurisdiction, much of bitcoin will be a sanctioned currency where only the addresses that the government approves will be allowed to send and receive coins?

I mean, I don't think I need to imply this - it's already happening. They quite clearly want bitcoin to only be used via fully KYCed exchanges. Just read the proposals. They have even deliberately chosen the words they use to make anything else sound negative. It's no longer "self custody", but rather "non-hosted wallets".

In any case, similar to your ideas, terrorist funding will be the next big storyline that will be used against the cryptospace.

Terrorists, foreign governments, criminals, un-patriotic, what are you trying to hide, tHiNk Of ThE cHiLdReN, and a whole variety of other pearl clutching nonsense.

Then I guess people should stop supporting state terrorists (politicians).

The more you comply to their silly, authoritarian demands (from COVID lockdowns to crypto mandates and carbon credits), the more power you give to them.

Are people here willing to turn against the state? Even if it means losing job/university opportunities?

I think very few BTC maxis can truly classify themselves as libertarians. The rest are hypocrites (to put it lightly).

They just wanna get rich thanks to BTC and still keep their job/university position. Sorry, but you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Pick a side, even if it will cost you (either your luxury or your freedom).

[bbc.reporter]

Are you implying that under America's jurisdiction, much of bitcoin will be a sanctioned currency where only the addresses that the government approves will be allowed to send and receive coins?

I mean, I don't think I need to imply this - it's already happening. They quite clearly want bitcoin to only be used via fully KYCed exchanges. Just read the proposals. They have even deliberately chosen the words they use to make anything else sound negative. It's no longer "self custody", but rather "non-hosted wallets".

In any case, similar to your ideas, terrorist funding will be the next big storyline that will be used against the cryptospace.

Terrorists, foreign governments, criminals, un-patriotic, what are you trying to hide, tHiNk Of ThE cHiLdReN, and a whole variety of other pearl clutching nonsense.

Then I guess people should stop supporting state terrorists (politicians).

Vote for politicians who have expressed and declared their support for bitcoin and the cryptospace. This forum has the right to speculate and make fun of Robert Kennedy Jr, however, he is certainly the only presidential candidate who might make the executive order to stop cracking down on the cryptospace and create a more reasonable policies.

[cryptosize]

Are you implying that under America's jurisdiction, much of bitcoin will be a sanctioned currency where only the addresses that the government approves will be allowed to send and receive coins?

I mean, I don't think I need to imply this - it's already happening. They quite clearly want bitcoin to only be used via fully KYCed exchanges. Just read the proposals. They have even deliberately chosen the words they use to make anything else sound negative. It's no longer "self custody", but rather "non-hosted wallets".

In any case, similar to your ideas, terrorist funding will be the next big storyline that will be used against the cryptospace.

Terrorists, foreign governments, criminals, un-patriotic, what are you trying to hide, tHiNk Of ThE cHiLdReN, and a whole variety of other pearl clutching nonsense.

Then I guess people should stop supporting state terrorists (politicians).

Vote for politicians who have expressed and declared their support for bitcoin and the cryptospace. This forum has the right to speculate and make fun of Robert Kennedy Jr, however, he is certainly the only presidential candidate who might make the executive order to stop cracking down on the cryptospace and create a more reasonable policies.

Why?

[Lucius]

~snip~
In any case, similar to your ideas, terrorist funding will be the next big storyline that will be used against the cryptospace.

Isn't the financing of terrorism through Bitcoin a story that has been going on for years, mostly from the US media? It's nothing new, it's just taking advantage of the moment when such stories become relevant again, because it should be noted that the most powerful intelligence organizations in the world failed to prevent terrorists from carrying out such a massive attack, for which they had obviously been preparing for years. I wonder how terrorists were financed before there was Bitcoin?

SAN FRANCISCO — Hamas, the militant Palestinian group, has been designated a terrorist organization by Western governments and some others and has been locked out of the traditional financial system. But this year its military wing has developed an increasingly sophisticated campaign to raise money using Bitcoin.

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/cryptocurrencies-and-terrorist-financing-risk-hold-panic
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1096851.pdf

[cryptosize]

Why would they use Bitcoin and not Monero?

I call it BS.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Isn't the financing of terrorism through Bitcoin a story that has been going on for years, mostly from the US media?

Yup. It's their current favorite bullshit. A few years ago it was all about how bitcoin is single handedly causing global warming. But now it's about how bitcoin is single handedly funding terrorism. Next up will be something like bitcoin is single handedly going to collapse the economy and your IRA/pension will be worthless.

because it should be noted that the most powerful intelligence organizations in the world failed to prevent terrorists from carrying out such a massive attack, for which they had obviously been preparing for years.

Although their current mass surveillance has achieved nothing, all that proves is that the government needs more mass surveillance, right?

I call it BS.

It's already been disproved: https://nitter.cz/nic__carter/status/1717210060777009636#m. Just more absolutely worthless made up trash from blockchain analysis companies which the government use to justify literally anything they want.

[Lucius]

Yup. It's their current favorite bullshit. A few years ago it was all about how bitcoin is single handedly causing global warming. But now it's about how bitcoin is single handedly funding terrorism. Next up will be something like bitcoin is single handedly going to collapse the economy and your IRA/pension will be worthless.

The worst thing in all of this is that through years of repeating the same claims, an attitude has formed among people that this is true - and to me it looks like some kind of operation that aims to eliminate Bitcoin at some point by simply banning trading through CEXs and mining. It won't literally kill Bitcoin, but most people still do what the authorities say.

Although their current mass surveillance has achieved nothing, all that proves is that the government needs more mass surveillance, right?

I don't think that their current surveillance was unable to prevent what is currently happening in Israel or what happened in the US in the past, but that some things simply had to happen in order to justify all the wars that were fought in the past and which are being conducted today.

Of course, it is a win-win situation for those who want even stronger surveillance, because the "failure" enabled an open reckoning with those with whom they want to settle, and at the same time, human rights and their privacy will fall a few steps lower.

[cryptosize]

I don't think that their current surveillance was unable to prevent what is currently happening in Israel or what happened in the US in the past, but that some things simply had to happen in order to justify all the wars that were fought in the past and which are being conducted today.

Of course, it is a win-win situation for those who want even stronger surveillance, because the "failure" enabled an open reckoning with those with whom they want to settle, and at the same time, human rights and their privacy will fall a few steps lower.

Please don't say that, they'll label you as a "conspiracy theorist".

Governments always care about their citizens, their rights, their freedom. Right?

[Abiky]

Miners don't set consensus: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_is_not_ruled_by_miners

Further, mining pools are not a single entity. F2Pool, for example, does not own or operate all its hash power, or even a majority of its hash power. Miners are individuals, businesses, and other entities around the world, which collaboratively point their hash power at a pool in order to simplify the mining process and smooth out their earnings. If a pool is bought over by the government and starts censoring transactions, then the miners who are mining with that pool are free to switch to another pool, and indeed are incentivized to do so since by staying with their censoring pool they will be earning less since they will be deliberately excluding some high fee paying transactions.

Thanks for pointing that out. I've thought it was the miners who were in complete control of the Bitcoin blockchain. I'm glad nodes also have a say on the future direction of the project. With a balance of power between nodes and miners, Bitcoin can remain decentralized forever.

I guess it's safe to say the cryptocurrency is truly-unstoppable. Governments know this, so they've resorted to regulating centralized exchanges with the hopes of putting everything "under control". Illegal activities can be reduced thanks to strict regulations. As long as decentralization wins, there should be nothing to worry about. Who knows if BTC outlasts many of the coins we know and love today?

[bbc.reporter]

~snip~
In any case, similar to your ideas, terrorist funding will be the next big storyline that will be used against the cryptospace.

Isn't the financing of terrorism through Bitcoin a story that has been going on for years, mostly from the US media? It's nothing new, it's just taking advantage of the moment when such stories become relevant again, because it should be noted that the most powerful intelligence organizations in the world failed to prevent terrorists from carrying out such a massive attack, for which they had obviously been preparing for years. I wonder how terrorists were financed before there was Bitcoin?

SAN FRANCISCO — Hamas, the militant Palestinian group, has been designated a terrorist organization by Western governments and some others and has been locked out of the traditional financial system. But this year its military wing has developed an increasingly sophisticated campaign to raise money using Bitcoin.

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/cryptocurrencies-and-terrorist-financing-risk-hold-panic
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1096851.pdf

Agreed, it is nothing new and all these allegations of terrorist funding are only allegations without attempting to back them with proof. Also, Chainalysis has already declared that terrorist funding through the use of bitcoin has been overstated. However, my argument is this will not stop the government and the mainstream media from using terrorist funding as their next big storyline to make everyone fearful. Fud has always been something the government uses to trick ignorant people into supporting their oppressive campaigns very much similar to the war on drugs scam.



Reports of tens of millions of dollars in crypto going to fund Palestinian operations in Israel are likely “overstated,” Chainalysis said. The forensics outfit published a blog post arguing that flows of crypto financing to Hamas and affiliated groups have become inflated far beyond reality. While acknowledging that it was crucial to stop any financing of terror through crypto, Chainalysis said it was also important to understand how such funding actually works, lest it lead to misconceptions.

Source https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/10/19/hamas-crypto-funding-likely-overstated-chainalysis/

[Jon_Hodl]

Yup. things are heating up. The travel rule is already in action in the UK. Exchanges have already started seizing bitcoin and crypto deposits if users are unable to verify the source of funds.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrivers/2023/08/31/not-your-bitcoin-uk-crypto-firms-will-now-be-forced-to-seize-some-inbound-payments/
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/10/26/uk-lawmakers-pass-bill-to-help-seize-illicit-crypto/

When you consider that the FCC just voted to takeover all of the internet infrastructure in the US, it's not looking good for bitcoin use in the coming future. The war on Bitcoin is here and it's just getting started.

I hope we can all hang on until the next halving and the next price pump is enough for us to achieve exit velocity and push bitcoin adoption into the early majority phase.

As long as we all keep stacking and moving to cold storage, we should make it but things will get rough.

[Lucius]

Agreed, it is nothing new and all these allegations of terrorist funding are only allegations without attempting to back them with proof. Also, Chainalysis has already declared that terrorist funding through the use of bitcoin has been overstated. However, my argument is this will not stop the government and the mainstream media from using terrorist funding as their next big storyline to make everyone fearful. Fud has always been something the government uses to trick ignorant people into supporting their oppressive campaigns very much similar to the war on drugs scam.

I really wonder how those who claim that terrorism is financed with Bitcoin react when the company whose services they use tells them that this is not the case? The problem is that the average politician usually knows about the term "cryptocurrency", where he puts Bitcoin and all altcoins in the same basket, and demands the same sanctions for all.

I remember that there was a lot of talk about how the cartels use Bitcoin to smuggle drugs from South America more easily, although even today, as in the time of Escobar, the vast majority still use the good old US$, which is of course much safer than Bitcoin transactions (of course when it comes to anonymity).

[bbc.reporter]

@Lucius. The government has always been fear mongerers to control and manipulate the population under their jurisdiction. They do not care about the truth or what is real because behind this there is an agenda to gain more power and control over you and me.

Also, this is not about whether the politicians put bitcoin and altcoins under one basket, this is about the government's agenda to remove self custody from any type of digital currency. If a government cannot control a type of money then the government cannot control the people that uses them.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I really wonder how those who claim that terrorism is financed with Bitcoin react when the company whose services they use tells them that this is not the case?

They only hear what they want to hear. Blockchain analysis companies tell them that bitcoin is financing terrorism? Well then, we better clamp down on any and all bitcoin use which isn't entirely inside our centralized exchanges where we can surveil and censor everyone. Blockchain analysis companies tell them that privacy devs deserve to go to jail? Well then, better throw the entire legal weight of the government at someone for simply writing some open source code. Blockchain analysis companies reveal in court that their entire system is completely made up and has absolutely zero proven methods and absolutely zero evidence behind it whatsoever? Oh, we'll just ignore that bit. Blockchain analysis companies reveal that their initial claims about terrorist financing were in fact completely fabricated and not at all accurate? Lalalalala I can't hear you!

[Abiky]

Yup. things are heating up. The travel rule is already in action in the UK. Exchanges have already started seizing bitcoin and crypto deposits if users are unable to verify the source of funds.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrivers/2023/08/31/not-your-bitcoin-uk-crypto-firms-will-now-be-forced-to-seize-some-inbound-payments/
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/10/26/uk-lawmakers-pass-bill-to-help-seize-illicit-crypto/

When you consider that the FCC just voted to takeover all of the internet infrastructure in the US, it's not looking good for bitcoin use in the coming future. The war on Bitcoin is here and it's just getting started.

I hope we can all hang on until the next halving and the next price pump is enough for us to achieve exit velocity and push bitcoin adoption into the early majority phase.

As long as we all keep stacking and moving to cold storage, we should make it but things will get rough.

We knew from day one this was going to happen. After all, governments don't want to lose power/control over people. By introducing these restrictions, they are hoping to minimize crypto's (particularly Bitcoin) dominance in the mainstream world. Blocking deposits by being unable to verify the source of funds is frustrating to say the least. It will make newcomers' lives much more difficult.

Luckily for us, we have DEXs and P2P trading platforms to get in-and-out of crypto without KYC. The only downside is that these alternatives have lower liquidity than their centralized counterparts. You'd also be paying a small premium. But it's worth it considering that your identity and transaction info will be safe from the hands of the government. Believe me, things are going to get worse in the long run with the approval of spot ETFs. It will concentrate the supply of major cryptocurrencies into the hands of a few (mainly institutional investment companies). This means the crypto market will become more centralized in the future. As long as we have decentralized alternatives, nothing should be able to stop the revolution. Just my thoughts

[NotATether]

Yup. things are heating up. The travel rule is already in action in the UK. Exchanges have already started seizing bitcoin and crypto deposits if users are unable to verify the source of funds.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrivers/2023/08/31/not-your-bitcoin-uk-crypto-firms-will-now-be-forced-to-seize-some-inbound-payments/
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/10/26/uk-lawmakers-pass-bill-to-help-seize-illicit-crypto/

Cliche, but don't use centralized exchanges! They always go down, and when they don't go down, they seize your crypto for one reason or another.

Luckily for us, we have DEXs and P2P trading platforms to get in-and-out of crypto without KYC. The only downside is that these alternatives have lower liquidity than their centralized counterparts. You'd also be paying a small premium. But it's worth it considering that your identity and transaction info will be safe from the hands of the government. Believe me, things are going to get worse in the long run with the approval of spot ETFs. It will concentrate the supply of major cryptocurrencies into the hands of a few (mainly institutional investment companies). This means the crypto market will become more centralized in the future. As long as we have decentralized alternatives, nothing should be able to stop the revolution. Just my thoughts

At this point, if you want to trade between two cryptocurrencies, use a DEX. No reason to use CEX for this unless you're chasing pennies.

Onramp - offramp is a bit more difficult though. From what I've gathered, people use Telegram P2P channels for these kind of dealings (gee, this makes me miss pre-2019 Localbitcoins even more).

[o_e_l_e_o]

From what I've gathered, people use Telegram P2P channels for these kind of dealings (gee, this makes me miss pre-2019 Localbitcoins even more).

This sounds like an awful idea. Telegram is a haven for scams and scammers. Indeed, using social media of any kind to set up trades with complete strangers is incredibly risky and I would avoid at all costs (even if I didn't already avoid social media like the plague).

We have the biggest selection of good peer to peer services that we've ever had, and these services have more features and more volume than they've ever had. https://kycnot.me/?type=exchange. It's never been easier to trade bitcoin and fiat pairs in a safe peer to peer manner.

[Lucius]

@Lucius. The government has always been fear mongerers to control and manipulate the population under jurisdiction. They do not car about the truth or what is real because behind this there is an agenda to gain more power and control over you and me.

Also, this is not about whether the politicians put bitcoin and altcoins under one basket, this is about the government's agenda to remove self custody from any type of digital currency. If a government cannot control a type of money then the government cannot control the people that uses them.

Of course, it is always about controlling the masses, and if you control the central mechanism on which you have made them dependent, then the majority behave as if they are in the collective consciousness. Any deviation from the usual ways of behavior puts you on the black list and increased supervision of Big Brother. Resistance is futile is obviously the message they want to send, but it never worked and it won't even now.

~snip~
We have the biggest selection of good peer to peer services that we've ever had, and these services have more features and more volume than they've ever had. https://kycnot.me/?type=exchange. It's never been easier to trade bitcoin and fiat pairs in a safe peer to peer manner.

Maybe Patriot and similar initiatives are actually doing us a favor and pushing Bitcoin in the direction of greater decentralization? The list is really getting bigger and the good news is that more and more people are using such services. However, when it comes to trading, regardless of all the decentralized options, we still have the "problem" that we have to use centralized services when it comes to the deposit/withdraw of fiat funds, and all these services are mostly under the supervision of state institutions and must report every suspicious transaction.

Of course, there is always the possibility of face-to-face trading, but that brings with it some other risks that many do not agree to.