Should there be a way to register your wallet with the government?

[m2017]

Privacy is just one aspect of the Bitcoin network. For me, some of the other features are more important. For example -
- Immutable public records
- Peer to peer unregulated transfers
- Security of assets
- No complex controls over payments
- No fiat ties
- International payments without 3rd party intervention.

Of course there are many others, such as multi-sig and conditional payments. those are just a few of the advantages as I see them.  The government keeps banging on about money laundering and crime, but I don't believe those are the issues. The real issue seems to be the fact that Bitcoin frees people from the fiat crime(s). I believe that if we were able to register our wallets, together with the public keys associated with them, but we kept the private keys secret, then most of the declared objections would no longer be relevant. Of course this would need to be an optional registration, but taking advantage of it could help to expand the use of Bitcoin.

First you will provide them with public keys, and later they will require private keys from you. This will be the beginning of a quick end to everything you described above in the list of features that are important to you. No matter how much personal data you give to the government, they will never have enough until you lose 100% of your privacy. And with every concession you will find yourself more and more in digital slavery.

Money laundering and crime with bitcoin, which governments talk about, is just an excuse for infringement of the rights and discrimination of bitcoiners, the purpose of which is precisely to identify wallets with their owners. As soon as this happens (God Satoshi forbid), BTC-network will be completely regulated and will practically not differ in any way from the banking system. Why do we need such "expand the use of Bitcoin"?

But I believe that bitcoin should remain original, independent and confidential, as it was originally intended. In this form, it is unlikely to be integrated into the existing financial system (why would governments need this?) and will not be used as an official means of payment (I very much doubt the reality of these expectations), as bitcoiners have long desired. The destiny of bitcoin is to be an alternative financial system, saving from total government regulation.
    
"Should there be a way to register your wallet with the government?" - With all due respect as the oldest user of this forum, I have never been offered more unreasonable actions.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

Registering wallet with the government is not a good idea, especially since there is usually a change of people in government when their tenure are over. Other reasons are:
1. The government will become a third party to your wallet, in which a corrupt official can give info to fraudsters and empty one's wallet.
2. The government may impose ridiculous tax on bitcoin traders.
3. There will be no privacy to your wallet since the government is involved.

Those are brilliant points, but apart from that, if government are given the mandate to organize registration for Bitcoin wallet, then that means the sole purpose or ideology of Bitcoin has already been jeopardize, because just as Bitcoin stands for anonymousity and privacy of fund, if government are now given access to wallet registration, it literally means they will now have full control, which is of no different than what Is been done with our traditional fiat banking system. Because thou Bitcoin exchanges are regulated, and yet offers limited access to fund uses and activity tracking, it doesn't mean it was meant to be a tool of control by the government. Bitcoin is independent digital currency, and it will be good if it's Left to remain that way.

[famososMuertos]

It is difficult to have a middle point in the answer, which justifies your idea expressed in the context, that is, it is enough with the income tax returns, or exposure of assets, surely this idea varies from country to country, but the idea is to declare that heritage. That should not mean having to register our wallets.

It's more or less, to offer a practical idea, it's like if you bought a car, and the government accessed your GPS, no, there's no reason to do that. They know of the existence of your car, and that everything related to that acquisition is legal.

[ranochigo]

Firstly, I don't value Bitcoin in fiat, but in its purchasing power. I may need to relate that to a fiat currency, but that is really just to acquire it through an exchange. Even when you do value it in fiat, then it is international, so it is not just one fiat currency that is being used. Interestingly, its purchasing ability may vary from country to country - hence the opportunities for arbitrage via local exchanges.

Bitcoin should be treated as a currency, the fact that arbitrage opportunities or any profit making opportunities should be considered independently of its core function.

What I am suggesting is that people who are not trying to evade taxes, or indulge in activities that some may consider undesirable, may not have privacy as the primary attribute of Bitcoin. If you use an exchange with KYC, then you are a long way closer to my suggestion. One might even say that you have already embraced it.
Would it really make you less secure if the database was hacked? Would it really leave you vulnerable to a £50 wrench attack ( price adjusted for inflation )? At least it make make any perpetrators easier to discover.

You underestimate the importance of privacy to most. The reason why privacy appears to be a smaller issue than it really is would be because of the lack of education and knowledge. Privacy is important and a fundamental human right. If it doesn't seem to be important to you, then I believe fiat would be far easier for you to use.

There is also an assumption that people who want privacy are necessarily people who transact in illicit funds or are involved in them. This is false.

Remember that Bitcoin is pseudonymous , so most of the info is easy to  discover anyway. If you really want to indulge in illegal activities, use the currencies of the elite. These are high value gold coins such as the English Britannia and the Sovereign ( the coin, not the woke prince). They are exempt from VAT, gains tax and inheritance tax in the UK, so you can work out how keen the government really is to stop fraud and money laundering.
I just feel that registering your wallet with the government doesn't really give anything away, and may lead to simplification of the use of Bitcoin.

Pseudonymous != Zero Privacy. If you think someone can easily track your transactions, then you do not value privacy and you should absolutely declare all of your transactions and every single one of your activity to the government. Bitcoin is designed to be pseudonymous, and it cannot be done without the users intentionally taking steps to ensure this. Issues should not revolve about whataboutism but should focus on what we should achieve with our privacy.

Of course you may elect to have an undeclared second wallet, and that would be your choice

Don't you think this defeats the purpose of your suggestion?

[pinggoki]

As far as I understand the government can't control bitcoin because bitcoin is decentralized and can't share any secret information. Blockchain system helps more in crypto transactions. You can complete your transactions in less time without any central government intervention the popularity of blockchain is increasing day by day. Although its success started with cryptocurrency trading but its use is now being planned for many purposes some banks are testing its use.

That's why they restrict every other ways that users can interact with bitcoin, I mean there's the fact that they're cracking down on mixers, wallets and other things that the bitcoin and the cryptocurrency community is using right, not to mention that they're imposing taxes on them to try and discourage people from using them not to mention that they've got this propaganda against bitcoin is only used by criminals and that they can catch you easily if you ever use it but they don't mention the caveat that if you have criminal intent in using it that's the only time they can arrest you. It's a difficult road to be into bitcoin and invest in it, but things are slowly changing and I hope it's for the best especially with institutional investors getting into the bitcoin market, they've got the ability to influence the people in the government, who knows, they might do some lobbying that would work in our favor but I'm just being optimistic, it's unlikely that a company would do that for the benefit of the whole bitcoin community.

[Rabbitqt]

What do you think KYC is?

[adaseb]

They are already doing this in certain countries. I think Singapore is one of them. If you want to withdraw from an exchange, and you are a resident in Singapore and maybe one other country that I can’t recall, it won’t let you withdraw until you prove that wallet is yours. No idea what other proof they require.

I don’t understand the point because you can always send to another wallet anytime. So what is the point in only letting you withdraw to specific wallets? Maybe to provide a trail but there would of been a trail anyways without locking the withdraw address. Don’t understand the point honestly why this law exists.

[Rabata]

Of course there are many others, such as multi-sig and conditional payments. those are just a few of the advantages as I see them.  The government keeps banging on about money laundering and crime, but I don't believe those are the issues. The real issue seems to be the fact that Bitcoin frees people from the fiat crime(s).

Criminal activities like money laundering through Bitcoin blockchain and Bitcoin transactions are one of reasons but governments have bigger reasons which they don't publicly admit to their citizens.

As governments, they want to control their countries and citizens, they want money from tax to help their governmental operations lively. They want tax, at the end of all reasons, money is vital for governments.

Criminal activities are also one of the reasons but governments will be motivated to use Bitcoin only when they see a lot of revenue coming from Bitcoin or crypto. But the governments have not yet taken any good initiative for this through which they can collect taxes. If not now but in the next 1 decade surely governments will be forced to use it because there will be support from the majority of the population. We see crime by fiat as well but we can't deny the many benefits of using Bitcoin. Rather than considering some of its negative aspects, one should consider the positive aspects. It is an open door to economic freedom for all people of the world.

[davis196]

I believe that if we were able to register our wallets, together with the public keys associated with them, but we kept the private keys secret, then most of the declared objections would no longer be relevant. Of course this would need to be an optional registration, but taking advantage of it could help to expand the use of Bitcoin.

Why would anyone wanna register his/her BTC wallet with the government? If this is going to be optional, I highly doubt that anyone would agree to do such thing. Having trust in your government is the dumbest thing. I personally don't trust my government and I want to keep my assets as far away from my government as possible. Having such a "BTC wallet register" would be a recipe for disaster in the corrupt countries, where the corrupt government officials would try to force your to give them all your assets in one way or another.

[Maus0728]

What would be the point of pseudonymity that we're barely enjoying with bitcoin if we let that kind of thing happen? I for sure would rebel against that idea, that's not going to be a really good thing to do when it comes to protecting your privacy, plus I don't like how my government spends the taxpayers' money, their public projects suck and most of the time, the biggest expenses are lavish parties and useless abroad travels. Maybe if I'm forced to comply, I would just create a throwaway address that won't get any transactions, I won't mind if they monitor that one, I might even pay them to do for my amusement.

[Darker45]

That would be the height of Bitcoin's desecration. If this happens, you can't anymore attach the word free or freedom or independence with Bitcoin. What's the point of using Bitcoin, then?

Even the private in private keys would be rendered useless. Yes, you didn't surrender it. Yes, only you and you alone know it. But by registering your wallet, the government already monitors what you're doing with your Bitcoin. The moment they notice something suspicious and orders you to submit your private keys, what else can you do?

[God bless u]

Privacy is just one aspect of the Bitcoin network. For me, some of the other features are more important. For example -
- Immutable public records
- Peer to peer unregulated transfers
- Security of assets
- No complex controls over payments
- No fiat ties
- International payments without 3rd party intervention.

Of course there are many others, such as multi-sig and conditional payments. those are just a few of the advantages as I see them.  The government keeps banging on about money laundering and crime, but I don't believe those are the issues. The real issue seems to be the fact that Bitcoin frees people from the fiat crime(s). I believe that if we were able to register our wallets, together with the public keys associated with them, but we kept the private keys secret, then most of the declared objections would no longer be relevant. Of course this would need to be an optional registration, but taking advantage of it could help to expand the use of Bitcoin.

I think that's the perfect way to clear and solve all the security issues related to the wallet security. Nowadays scams are very much involved into the market and people are getting disappointed from them.

When a new user comes into the market and gets scammed straight away then no matter how much you convince him again to trust and invest into crypto he'll not be ready to do that. So they needs to be catered.

[Cryptomultiplier]

Privacy is just one aspect of the Bitcoin network. ...

...but taking advantage of it could help to expand the use of Bitcoin.

We have gone past issues of registration because I believe KYC verification covers that, and any government that wants to have the details or records of any exchange's users, should get it from the exchange management seeing that it is regulated and accepted and under some kind of control( unless it is not), all for the sake of prevention of money laundering and limiting scammers and hackers activities on the decentralized network.
For countries like Brazil, Lugano of which accept crypto currency and allow its citizens use it to pay taxes, I think the aim after regulation of cryptocurrency should be to create centers that function in place of commercial Banks, where citizens can go, create and register wallets on the exchange of choice and buy, sell or trade on their own as we normally now do or through the centres where ones account is registered on.

[slaman29]

I guess that's what they wanted to do with El Salvador right? You had to open a wallet, but it was using a government app or something. So they knew everybody who used bitcoin and exactly when where etc.

I can wonder though if BTC network will handle even a small country.

We are aiming for adoption all around the world but is there a way to somehow not sacrifice our privacy in the process? Bitcoin is decentralized by nature and we don’t want to lose its essence.

I should have known that any government would not allow bitcoin to be fully decentralized and would still want to have some sense of control over their citizens and bitcoin.

I guess just use Bitcoin the way it was always meant to be used? Like with your own wallet, and simple new wallets all the time, hot wallets for some, cold for savings, and never do address reuse.

I don't really know why people complain a lot about governments though its kinda their job to be intrusive

[0t3p0t]

I guess that's what they wanted to do with El Salvador right? You had to open a wallet, but it was using a government app or something. So they knew everybody who used bitcoin and exactly when where etc.

I can wonder though if BTC network will handle even a small country.

I am not a fan of this if it will really happen here in my country in the future especially something like this scenario as one of the reason why I am into crypto is privacy. I would prefer storing my Bitcoin holdings in a non-custodial wallet rather than using a government app which will violate my right to be anonymous.

[Jet Cash]

I think you guys are missing the main point of this thread. What I was trying to say is that privacy should be an option to be selected by the user. Lets take one situation - I own a domain name, and I sell it to a US citizen. The US banking system is archaic and a real pain to deal with. I used to have a dollar account with Citibank, and the easiest way for me to accept payments was via dollar cheques. This was a nuisance, as I had to post  the cheques to a London address, and wait for them to clear. There were all the usual risk associated with fiat bank accounts, although these never impacted me. I tried PayPal, but PayPal tried to scam me, not my customer, it was PayPal itself. Bitcoin is a godsend to avoid all these problems with international payments. There is no need for privacy, as the domain name registration is a matter of public record. I am happy to declare everything to the taxation authorities, and to exploit any legal options to reduce my tax bill on the transaction.

I appreciate that the potential for apparent privacy with Bitcoin is an important issue for some, but it seems to be the major excuse that is used by governments to restrict and reduce the use of Bitcoin. My point is that by recording a wallet  to allow the government to monitor activities, it may open up many opportunities, and avoid the draconian restrictions that they would like to impose. There is no need for the government to know your private keys, and access to them should only be granted following a high court order. This should only be granted following conviction for a criminal activity in my opinion. I find it better to take advantage of government incentives, and to maximise income and minimise costs. This is better than fighting, and winning pyrrhic victories.

[ranochigo]

Bitcoin is a godsend to avoid all these problems with international payments. There is no need for privacy, as the domain name registration is a matter of public record. I am happy to declare everything to the taxation authorities, and to exploit any legal options to reduce my tax bill on the transaction.

That's great. Privacy goes beyond the topic about engaging in illicit activity but it also concerns about the ability for your government to collect metadata on you, and for a thirdparty to be able to intrude into your privacy. If this does not concern you, then we can continue in this tangent.

but it seems to be the major excuse that is used by governments to restrict and reduce the use of Bitcoin. My point is that by recording a wallet  to allow the government to monitor activities, it may open up many opportunities, and avoid the draconian restrictions that they would like to impose. There is no need for the government to know your private keys, and access to them should only be granted following a high court order. This should only be granted following conviction for a criminal activity in my opinion. I find it better to take advantage of government incentives, and to maximise income and minimise costs. This is better than fighting, and winning pyrrhic victories.

Not exactly. Government prefers fiat because they are essentially controlling it; they can enact any exchange policies to influence the prices by printing more money or encouraging saving, etc. If the majority of the population are using crypto, then they don't have as much power to do it anymore.

There is a reason why the restrictions exist and that is to make it prohibitively expensive for citizens to do something that doesn't align with the government. And no, I'm not talking about any illegal activities; capital control is an example that comes to mind. Again, Bitcoin advocates having your own bank which wouldn't align with your point about forfeiting your Bitcoins if there is a court order. Allowing them control over your coins is like Paypal or central banks (peep Cyprus's crisis in 2013) all over again.

If forfeiting your rights to the government is the way to go, then we probably wouldn't have a decentralized network in the first place. Just let them create their own with absolutely zero privacy. It goes far beyond the problem about AML, KYC or any other illicit activities that comes with a pseudonymous system.

[BlackBoss_]

Not exactly. Government prefers fiat because they are essentially controlling it; they can enact any exchange policies to influence the prices by printing more money or encouraging saving, etc. If the majority of the population are using crypto, then they don't have as much power to do it anymore.

In future, with developments and deployments of Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), governments will try to force their citizens to use CBDCs, KYC as a mandatory condition.

By these digitalized tools, they will be more easily control money flows of their citizens and the first thing they will do is asking citizens to KYC CBDC wallets.

With blockchain-based currency like Bitcoin, governments don't control it from code to network, and they know they can not have full control on these blockchains and money flows in and out those blockchains.

[ranochigo]

With blockchain-based currency like Bitcoin, governments don't control it from code to network, and they know they can not have full control on these blockchains and money flows in and out those blockchains.

You can't, but it is also possible to make a centralized Blockchain though that will be quite a bit different in function from Bitcoin. They would likely differ in quite a few areas as compared to Bitcoin to try to mimic their fiat system. If that happens, then it would possibly be recognized as a legal tender. Else, registering your wallet to regulate Bitcoin doesn't seem to be as good of an idea.

[bittraffic]

Aren't they up to it already that for every exchange we sign up for, we need to submit KYC documents already?  The governments can surely request access to these databases since the companies are regulated by the government.

Blockchain is an honest record of people's wallets so let's say wallet registration is being enforced by the government, will the government make these wallet databases public for all the see?