OFAC-Sanctioned Transactions Being Censored

[cryptosize]

CBDC introduces new variables (carbon credits, social credit score). Cards are different.

But credit cards are linked with banks. This means Visa, MasterCard etc all implement a credit score system for banks.

Btw yeah I have read the entire discussion.

No, they don't implement a mandatory carbon credit/social credit score system.

When was the last time you saw VISA/MasterCard reject your red meat/gasoline purchases?

ps: I'm not talking about taking loans. You're confused.

I'm talking about regular debit cards.

[1714603959]

1714603959

[1714603959]

1714603959

[1714603959]

1714603959

[1714603959]

1714603959

[1714603959]

1714603959

[1714603959]

1714603959

[cryptosize]

Very interesting video, check it out:

JUST IN 🇩🇪 - German member of Parliament
@JoanaCotar
 bashes CBCDs in the Bundestag WHILE WEARING a #Bitcoin T-shirt.

(English 🔊via AI translation)

https://twitter.com/Swan/status/1722717878003364137

German parliament member ’staunch opponent’ of digital euro, all in on Bitcoin

https://cointelegraph.com/news/german-parliament-member-staunch-opponent-of-digital-euro-all-in-on-bitcoin

[apogio]

ps: I'm not talking about taking loans. You're confused.

I'm talking about regular debit cards.

Ok this is what I thought. Sorry.

Wait, are you saying that bank credit core system is similar to social credit score? You must be joking. These are not the same, not even close.
When bank loans you money it wants to know how if you have a stable job, if you have other existing loans and such.
A social credit score is when they check your recent posts on social platforms to see if you support the government and decide if they should loan you money based on that.

The only thing I am saying mate is that they both suck. Between the bad, the worst option may be CBDC but I want to clarify that the current economic system which is bank based, has already huge flaws.

No bank credit system is not similar to social credit score. In fact I don't even want to know what the latter is.

But when the bank adds 17% on top of your expenses because you were one month late and then VISA gets 3% of that, I am sorry, I hate this equally.

If you talk about Debit payments then essentially VISA will get 3% of every payment you make, which is a service fee and it's not that bad. But again the bank owns the money you think you own, so...

I mean don't get me wrong, the only thing I am saying is we choose the bad from the worse.

And of course this: A social credit score is when they check your recent posts on social platforms to see if you support the government and decide if they should loan you money based on that is the most unethical thing I have ever seen, but it's not the only one.

[o_e_l_e_o]

IMO people who are for CBDCs and might use them don't realize yet what they'll bring to the table along with the so called convenience.

Exactly, which goes back to my previous point that, just like when people throw their KYC around everywhere and then end up with their details being stolen, by the time they realize how terrible CBDCs are it will be too late to do anything about it.

The question is: is it better to use card payments with the current system? Or CBDCs? To me they are the same. I see no difference at all.

Card payments are definitely less bad than CBDCs. Your credit card provider refuses to let you make a payment? You can at least try another provider, or a bank transfer, or some other option. A government refuses to let you make a payment with their CBDC? Nothing you can do about it.

[apogio]

The question is: is it better to use card payments with the current system? Or CBDCs? To me they are the same. I see no difference at all.

Card payments are definitely less bad than CBDCs. Your credit card provider refuses to let you make a payment? You can at least try another provider, or a bank transfer, or some other option. A government refuses to let you make a payment with their CBDC? Nothing you can do about it.

As I said, I don't claim to be the ultra revolutionary, but I hate both. I realise that CBDCs are far worse but in my opinion card payments are also bad, because they ar connected to the banking system. The latter is a system I have learnt to live with, but it doesn't mean I like it. Finally, banks try to make money in every possible way, getting absurd money if people fail to pay their credit balance. So, my point is we should not have CBDCs , nor banks. That's why I call them equally bad. The card provider companies get money as a fee for their services, so perhaps my initial accusations are not very fair. But, nevertheless, they are linked with the current financial system, aren't they?

[cryptosize]

The question is: is it better to use card payments with the current system? Or CBDCs? To me they are the same. I see no difference at all.

Card payments are definitely less bad than CBDCs. Your credit card provider refuses to let you make a payment? You can at least try another provider, or a bank transfer, or some other option. A government refuses to let you make a payment with their CBDC? Nothing you can do about it.

As I said, I don't claim to be the ultra revolutionary, but I hate both. I realise that CBDCs are far worse but in my opinion card payments are also bad, because they ar connected to the banking system. The latter is a system I have learnt to live with, but it doesn't mean I like it. Finally, banks try to make money in every possible way, getting absurd money if people fail to pay their credit balance. So, my point is we should not have CBDCs , nor banks. That's why I call them equally bad. The card provider companies get money as a fee for their services, so perhaps my initial accusations are not very fair. But, nevertheless, they are linked with the current financial system, aren't they?

I still think you're a bit confused.

CBDCs aren't about making money (VISA/MasterCard already do that as you said).

They're about total control/enslavement.

The government/EU Commission will legislate a daily/monthly/yearly quota of how much red meat you're allowed to consume.

Don't believe me? Check it out yourself:

https://en.topwar.ru/218234-nemeckie-chinovniki-predlagajut-ogranichit-potreblenie-mjasa-v-strane-do-10-grammov-v-den-na-cheloveka.html

Please don't dismiss this if you're vegan, because they also plan to limit other things too... your gasoline consumption, how often you'll be able to use airplanes etc.

Bitcoiners are staunch defenders of freedom, right?

That's why NO ONE should accept the Digital ID (CBDC wallet):

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-digital-identity_en

ps: I'm not talking about taking loans. You're confused.

I'm talking about regular debit cards.

Ok this is what I thought. Sorry.

Wait, are you saying that bank credit core system is similar to social credit score? You must be joking. These are not the same, not even close.
When bank loans you money it wants to know how if you have a stable job, if you have other existing loans and such.
A social credit score is when they check your recent posts on social platforms to see if you support the government and decide if they should loan you money based on that.

The only thing I am saying mate is that they both suck. Between the bad, the worst option may be CBDC but I want to clarify that the current economic system which is bank based, has already huge flaws.

No bank credit system is not similar to social credit score. In fact I don't even want to know what the latter is.

But when the bank adds 17% on top of your expenses because you were one month late and then VISA gets 3% of that, I am sorry, I hate this equally.

If you talk about Debit payments then essentially VISA will get 3% of every payment you make, which is a service fee and it's not that bad. But again the bank owns the money you think you own, so...

I mean don't get me wrong, the only thing I am saying is we choose the bad from the worse.

And of course this: A social credit score is when they check your recent posts on social platforms to see if you support the government and decide if they should loan you money based on that is the most unethical thing I have ever seen, but it's not the only one.

I've posted this video before, check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5uqMmAGk8c

Also this one:

https://blog.independent.org/2022/12/01/klaus-schwab-china/

You guys still think the West won't become like China?

Bonus video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxJ1wPnkk4

I guess that's enough red pilling for today.

[btcinfo891]

It's the same with banks and also CBDCs. Until it doesn't go down like 2008 and blow up in their faces, they won't realize what they don't already have.

By which point it will be too late to change anything. We will never be able to go back to before mass surveillance. Once CBDCs are launched, we will never be able to go back to before they existed. And once the government have control of the bitcoin network and can censor at will, we will never be able to go back to it being free. Which is why we need to be discussing solutions now.

It is relatively easy to stay anonymous while working with crypto alone without converting to/from fiat. The governments will probably require everyone to register their self-hosted wallets, but they cannot really enforce it, at least not at the moment.

However the weak point of crypto is conversion from/to cash/CBDC. The governments know that and they are heavily regulating that conversion, essentially enforcing KYC on any such operation.

So as long as we find a way to convert crypto to/from fiat without going through KYC, then we should be fine.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The governments will probably require everyone to register their self-hosted wallets, but they cannot really enforce it, at least not at the moment.

This kind of thing is already well underway. There are protocols such as AOPP to support people KYCing their own wallets. This travesty even gained widespread support from entities which should really know better, like Trezor.

So as long as we find a way to convert crypto to/from fiat without going through KYC, then we should be fine.

How do you propose we do this once the government succeeds in getting rid of cash and forcing everyone to move to a CBDC, where they have complete surveillance over every transaction?

[btcinfo891]

The governments will probably require everyone to register their self-hosted wallets, but they cannot really enforce it, at least not at the moment.

This kind of thing is already well underway. There are protocols such as AOPP to support people KYCing their own wallets. This travesty even gained widespread support from entities which should really know better, like Trezor.

The governments will probably force most centralized web-based wallets and most hardware wallets to perform KYC. But it is difficult to enforce something like that for purely software wallets running on users' computers (i.e. self-hosted wallets). They will probably try to outlaw and/or block the self-hosted wallets, but I don't think they will succeed. At best they can succeed in splitting crypto into a government-controlled, fake crypto and uncontrolled, real crypto. There might be a another problem with the real crypto if its development becomes outlawed, e.g. it may become illegal to develop something like Monero.

So as long as we find a way to convert crypto to/from fiat without going through KYC, then we should be fine.

How do you propose we do this once the government succeeds in getting rid of cash and forcing everyone to move to a CBDC, where they have complete surveillance over every transaction?

For cash it is easy to convert it to/from real crypto, so the question is converting between real crypto and the totalitarian CBDC. Of course I am not suggesting anything illegal, but I can imagine how trade may happen in the future between no too law abiding people.

I can imagine that there is user A who has real crypto and user B who has some CBDC. Then I can imagine that user A creates some random image, that user B likes and buys it from user A, paying user A some CBDC. At the same time some crypto is moved from a crypto wallet owned by A to a crypto wallet owned by B. The random image may contain the actual crypto transaction data but it is not mandatory if both parties trust each other to perform the two transactions (CBDC and crypto) independently.

Obviously this approach has the disadvantage that the government will try to tax the purchase of the random image and charge user A a sales/VAT tax , but there may be other types of transactions that are not taxed by the government, e.g. donations or something else. The tax code varies from country to country.

I can also think of other more complex ways to use real crypto in parallel with CBDC, but the above is probably the simplest to implement.

[Abiky]

This kind of thing is already well underway. There are protocols such as AOPP to support people KYCing their own wallets. This travesty even gained widespread support from entities which should really know better, like Trezor.

So this means non-custodial wallets will now be KYC-compliant via the use of the AOPP protocol? It doesn't make any sense. Especially if the wallet is open source. What's stopping someone from making a fork without the protocol? This will only work on closed-source wallets.

There's no way governments will be able to enforce regulations on truly-decentralized blockchain networks. It's technically impossible. The only thing they can do is regulate centralized exchanges, services, and wallet providers (custodial). They can also pressure developers to write code that's regulatory-compliant. But the community ultimately decides which changes to approve or reject on a Blockchain network. Lets hope decentralization wins in the long run. :/

[o_e_l_e_o]

What's stopping someone from making a fork without the protocol? This will only work on closed-source wallets.

Nothing, of course, except they might decide that doing so is illegal. The AOPP protocol wasn't designed to make every wallet undergo KYC at source though, but rather require that centralized exchanges attach your KYC to your withdrawal addresses by having you sign a message from it prior to withdrawal.

There's no way governments will be able to enforce regulations on truly-decentralized blockchain networks. It's technically impossible.

True, but as we've seen in this thread, bitcoin is not actually censorship resistant. If the government get 51% of mining power to comply with their blacklists, then they can simply censor any transaction paying to or from a non-KYCed address.

[cryptosize]

There's no way governments will be able to enforce regulations on truly-decentralized blockchain networks. It's technically impossible.

True, but as we've seen in this thread, bitcoin is not actually censorship resistant. If the government get 51% of mining power to comply with their blacklists, then they can simply censor any transaction paying to or from a non-KYCed address.

How likely is that to happen? Either from the US government or BlackRock.

It's a huge ASIC investment to acquire 51% of the hashpower. Billions of dollars are required, maybe trillions in the future.

Not to mention there's tons of competition:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/russian-government-subsidies-crypto-mining-facility-in-siberia

[DooMAD]

True, but as we've seen in this thread, bitcoin is not actually censorship resistant. If the government get 51% of mining power to comply with their blacklists, then they can simply censor any transaction paying to or from a non-KYCed address.

It's arguably still resistant, just not immune.  But yes, there's definitely a considerable amount of work to be done to prevent further erosion of privacy and freedom.  

So this means non-custodial wallets will now be KYC-compliant via the use of the AOPP protocol?

If users sleepwalk into subservience, then it's certainly possible.  Hopefully enough of them are alert and aware of how dangerous AOPP can potentially be.  For those that aren't, maybe we need to shout louder?  It seems like it should be blindingly obvious, but then I sometimes forget that not everyone places value in having full control of their funds.  

[cryptosize]

So this means non-custodial wallets will now be KYC-compliant via the use of the AOPP protocol?

If users sleepwalk into subservience, then it's certainly possible.  Hopefully enough of them are alert and aware of how dangerous AOPP can potentially be.  For those that aren't, maybe we need to shout louder?  It seems like it should be blindingly obvious, but then I sometimes forget that not everyone places value in having full control of their funds.  

Sheeple are sleeping, they just won't wake up and try to understand who wants to abolish privacy by 2030:

https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/welcome-to-2030-i-own-nothing-have-no-privacy-and-life-has-never-been-better-ee2eed62f710

Another "conspiracy theory" according to some "educated" folks...

Do you know how many people have been shouting since 2020 about the Great Reset agenda? And how many people dismissed it as a silly, tinfoil hat conspiracy theory?

Sheeple/useless eaters will get what they deserve, I have zero pity/sympathy for them.

[mindrust]

Just learned about this. Big if true and it looks like it is. If they can censor any tx they want, since there is no business which don't demand KYC, then bitcoin and the legacy banking are pretty much the same thing  now. That's what I was afraid of.

They are getting bitcoin ready for the ETF approval.

Bitcoin is getting "institutionalized".

They are kiling mixers, punishing CZ/Ronaldo, censoring transactions, letting no no-KYC business survive...

Not looking good.

Everybody who cheered for the Blackrock ETF should rethink their actions imo.

[o_e_l_e_o]

It's a huge ASIC investment to acquire 51% of the hashpower. Billions of dollars are required, maybe trillions in the future.

They don't have to acquire anything, though. Just force pool operators to obey their blacklists, and count on enough individual miners not caring enough to switch to a different pool. F2Pool started censoring transactions based on the US government OFAC blacklist, despite there being exactly zero laws requiring them to do so and despite them not even being based in the US.

Everybody who cheered for the Blackrock ETF should rethink their actions imo.

This forum is full of people who welcome ETFs, welcome institutions, and welcome more regulations, all because it will make the price go up. And if the bitcoin forum founded by Satoshi is largely happy to sacrifice everything bitcoin was designed for in order to chase some short term fiat gains, then you can be damn sure the average Joe isn't going care.

[cryptosize]

It's a huge ASIC investment to acquire 51% of the hashpower. Billions of dollars are required, maybe trillions in the future.

They don't have to acquire anything. Just force pool operators to obey their blacklists, and count on enough individual miners not caring enough to switch to a different pool. F2Pool started censoring transactions based on the US government OFAC blacklist, despite there being exactly zero laws requiring them to do so and despite them not even being based in the US.

Everybody who cheered for the Blackrock ETF should rethink their actions imo.

This forum is full of people who welcome ETFs, welcome institutions, and welcome more regulations, all because it will make the price go up. And if the bitcoin forum founded by Satoshi is largely happy to sacrifice everything bitcoin was designed for in order to chase some short term fiat gains, then you can damn sure the average Joe isn't going care.

I'm afraid you're right.

Most Bitcoiners are huge hypocrites, they give zero fucks about freedom, they only care about fiat gains...

Hell, I don't even pay attention to BTC/USD these days anymore (I no longer participate in price discussions). I know the price is rising, but what's the point?

[serveria.com]

Just learned about this. Big if true and it looks like it is. If they can censor any tx they want, since there is no business which don't demand KYC, then bitcoin and the legacy banking are pretty much the same thing  now. That's what I was afraid of.

They are getting bitcoin ready for the ETF approval.

Bitcoin is getting "institutionalized".

They are kiling mixers, punishing CZ/Ronaldo, censoring transactions, letting no no-KYC business survive...

Not looking good.

Everybody who cheered for the Blackrock ETF should rethink their actions imo.

Yeah, I agree. There will be some privacy penalty for huge fiat gains. It's inevitable. But I guess it's a reasonable trade-off and we're lucky they're not planning to ban Bitcoin. After so many years, staying poor but free doesn't seem enticing to me. 

If you're still unsure, just try creating a new account or order a debit card from some exchange (say Coinbase). It's mission impossible if you can't provide proof of employment and source of funds. Where are the good old days? 

[mindrust]

I'm afraid you're right.

Most Bitcoiners are huge hypocrites, they give zero fucks about freedom, they only care about fiat gains...

Hell, I don't even pay attention to BTC/USD these days anymore (I no longer participate in price discussions). I know the price is rising, but what's the point?

I don't understand why they trade bitcoin for pump and dump... there are many stocks which they can use only for this purpose alone. My guess is, It is probably crypto is the first asset they learned to trade and they think it is the only asset which can go moon.

On one hand, we will have bitcoin which will become ultra-institutionalized, fully KYC enabled, censored, high fees (thx to ordinals), good performer against FIAT, available on every exchange

On other hand, we will have XMR. Zero KYC, zero adoption, shit price performance (when this is over, will it even have a price i wonder), zero censorship, low fees. We won't even find a place to convert it to FIAT. No legit business will accept it too.

:/

*Also, fuck F2Pool. I could at least understand why a wallet would do it, but for a bitcoin miner to violate the decentralization of the network they directly profit from is a mortal sin.

This is what I struggled with the most..the fact that one of the largest pools is openly violating one of the core principles of the network is just shocking.

I really want to understand their motivation for censoring the transactions in the first place. Would they even face any legal issues if they simply included the transaction? How does F2Pool benefit from the censorship? Political ass-kissing?

Their motivation is simple. They are following the law. Either they censor the tx, or they will go to jail.

Is there a business which pay taxes to the gov can say no to "KYC"?

Miners pay taxes too. How are they gonna ignore the gov?

R.I.P.


We can only solve this problem if we bring home mining back and it ain't coming back.

[btcinfo891]

On one hand, we will have bitcoin which will become ultra-institutionalized, fully KYC enabled, censored, high fees (thx to ordinals), good performer against FIAT, available on every exchange

These KYCed cryptocurrencies will lose the "crypto" functionality (no more anonymity) and will essentially become very similar to the other digital government-controlled currencies. For practical reasons they will be just like the bank electronic money that people access through their debit/credit cards or the future CBDCs. However the CBDCs and the bank money will integrate better with the online/offline shops and the government institutions. So the KYCed crypto will not have any advantage over the government CBDC and I expect it to be used mostly for trading on the exchanges by people trying to make some profit from the volatility of the crypto. But no reason to use KYCed crypto in the everyday life if it is does not provide any benefit over the CBDCs.

So institutionalizing a cryptocurrency by enforcing KYC for its usage essentially means turning it into yet another stock symbol that is useless outside of the exchanges.

On other hand, we will have XMR. Zero KYC, zero adoption, shit price performance (when this is over, will it even have a price i wonder), zero censorship, low fees. We won't even find a place to convert it to FIAT. No legit business will accept it too.

If cash remains then most likely there will be people who will keep buying/selling real (anonymous) crypto trying it make profit from the volatility of the real crypto. This market will be much smaller by the current one but it will exist.

The major problem is converting between real crypto and CBDCs (and other government-controlled electronic money) at the same time preserving the anonymity of the real crypto wallets and the anonymity of the crypto transactions. I have been thinking about it and it seems that there are various ways to organize this conversion between real crypto and CBDCs as long as the users are allowed to transfer freely CBDCs (or other government-controlled money) from one government-controlled wallet to another without significant cost, i.e. minimal or no government taxes for such transfers. I think that if this problem is solved, then the remaining problems will be solved too.