The absolute insanity Congress is writing now...

[philipma1957]

one way to mix your bitcoin is to send it somewhere like coinbase and then send it back to another address

sending coin to a CEX and withdraw from their other hotwallet is a way to swap coin taint. but it comes with services then monitoring and knowing what came in and out

using a CEX as a mixer was only good years ago before regulations..

there are many other methods to do it to get clean fresh coin with no taint. work it out, learn how bitcoin works to learn the simple way. and do it. hint (coin as fee in deal with pool to get fresh minted coin(its what the meme bloat scammers do))

they use the same address ("account") over and over and over. until the cows come home and yet somehow, privacy doesn't seem to be anything they worry about. i dont know why. maybe it's two different mindsets.

satoshi sent funds to hal, then reused the same address half a dozen times more.... 15 years later no body has found satoshi

there are no kyc exchanges you can use them and hide coins.

you can mine to nicehash using a virgin address. No one knows who owns the address.

https://www.nicehash.com/my/miner/@@@@@@@@kslfsn5s@@@@@@zcsw32t9j@@@@@@@@@@@

point a ton of gear and that address will get a weekly deposit no one knows the owner of it. All they know is the amount of coins in it.

Since it gets weekly deposits of lets say 0.010 btc at years end it has 0.52 btc

If you have a bigger mine you can do it with 5 addresses and each will have 0.52 btc at years end. plus they are not breaking the rules as written since they are used 52 times a year.

at the end of the year. you can merge them into anyone of the five addresses you used repetitively  and you have 2.60 btc clean as by these rules. No one knows whom or is it who you are.

[larry_vw_1955]

And this is exactly where Mixers, Coin Joins, Atomic Swaps, Bisq et cetera come as the solution to your exact words!  I create that Privacy for myself.  I interact with Bisq users or Atomic Swap users who are just like me so I can have my Privacy and they can too.

i'm not sure how much privacy bisq really gives someone. not when most of the payment methods it supports like zelle, bank wire, ach, moneygram, western union. those things can be investigated and looked into and such. no matter if you're the one sending or receiving, there's still going to be records. what do you think about that, PrivacyG?

https://bisq.wiki/Payment_methods

oh wow it looks like you have gotten sophistocated though. Atomic swaps? i'm amazed someone actually does those rather than just pontificating about them from a theoretical standpoint. you should open a thread about that topic and how you do them.  

at the end of the year. you can merge them into anyone of the five addresses you used repetitively  and you have 2.60 btc clean as by these rules. No one knows whom or is it who you are.

then that means you wouldn't need to declare any of that to the IRS since no one knows who you are. not until you actually spend them. or do something with them that allows you to be tracked. if they are just sitting there, you haven't really even taken possession of them and i would think that would hold up in court. but don't merge them. because once you merged them you have taken posession of them.

[LoyceV]

I have used most of the well known Wallets and NONE of them have EVER mentioned even a single time a thing about 'Taint'.  Mycelium, Electrum, Bitcoin Core, Unstoppable, Bread, Coinbase even back when I first started!  I visited so many Block Explorers and none of them have ever mentioned a single thing about 'Taint' either.  Blockchair, Blockchain, you name it.

I like it It'll be a cold day in hell before Bitcoin Core tells you your money is tainted.

Taint defined by who?

I'll make it easy (if you catch my drift): here's a list of all tainted Bitcoin addresses

But Bitcoin, which is barely even used at all as a Currency and the illicit segment of all Transactions probably amounts to less than 1 percent of the total illegal Money of only the examples I gave above, is getting restrictions over restrictions and absurd regulations.

The fact that governments try so very hard to stop Bitcoin, makes me believe I made the right choice in getting some

you dont have a right to privacy in public. because ITS PUBLIC

When I'm outside, you're allowed to take a picture of me, but you're not allowed to publish it. Of course there's privacy.

No one knows who owns the address.

https://www.nicehash.com/my/miner/@@@@@@@@kslfsn5s@@@@@@zcsw32t9j@@@@@@@@@@@

Since we're on the topic of privacy: you know that removing part of the address still makes it very easy to find the full address once it's used, right?

[franky1]

you dont have a right to privacy in public. because ITS PUBLIC

When I'm outside, you're allowed to take a picture of me, but you're not allowed to publish it. Of course there's privacy.

well most people in this forum are american so ill talk about them(and because this topic is about US congress thus people in US affected by it)
you are allowed to publish it.. and to quote many peoples favourite "american rights", the first amendment: freedom of speech and press, so anyone can publish anything thats in public
you dont even need permission from those you capture on camera.
theres a new trend happening of the 'freedom fighters' that do these things called first amendment audits where they go into outdoor public and also government(public) buildings and record inside there to test if the public employees know the first amendment and if they respond positively or negatively to being filmed

but as said before.. even if filmed in a non-public setting. and it appears on youtube. the only way you can use your right to privacy in private is to fight it after the invasion of privacy or take it to court and fight it after the fact.

anyways

But Bitcoin, which is barely even used at all as a Currency and the illicit segment of all Transactions probably amounts to less than 1 percent of the total illegal Money of only the examples I gave above, is getting restrictions over restrictions and absurd regulations.

The fact that governments try so very hard to stop Bitcoin, makes me believe I made the right choice in getting some

i personally preferred bitcoin pre 2014 before governments over reached their jurisdiction by using the 'officially a currency' recognition as their first step into putting barriers in.. and also before core devs became governing "gods" of bitcoin by being sponsored to be politicians and economists instead of just being voluntary devs

bitcoin has changed both internally and externally politically.. and its worth knowing and acknowledging the changes to then know how to try to fight it, work around it

this provenance chain of custody of value that coins transfer to, from one address to the next is defined as having a taint of X based on certain things of its history
and a utxo's 'taint' is rated as a scale and can go from white(clean) gray(suspicious) dark(dirty)
taint is not a verbage to say its dirty by default.. as taint is not a yes/no thing.

Taint defined by who?  I have used most of the well known Wallets and NONE of them have EVER mentioned even a single time a thing about 'Taint'.  Mycelium, Electrum, Bitcoin Core, Unstoppable, Bread, Coinbase even back when I first started!  I visited so many Block Explorers and none of them have ever mentioned a single thing about 'Taint' either.  Blockchair, Blockchain, you name it.

you might want to check on that
blockchain.info used the term "taint analysis" even mtgox did and this was back in the days of 2010-2012

like i said use the forums search function for the word "taint" and do it between dates of like 4500 to 9999 days (pre 2012)
and you will surprise yourself at how the bitcoin community was talking about taint far before governments even started regulating money services/exchanges

[larry_vw_1955]

you dont have a right to privacy in public. because ITS PUBLIC

When I'm outside, you're allowed to take a picture of me, but you're not allowed to publish it. Of course there's privacy.

well most people in this forum are american so ill talk about them(and because this topic is about US congress thus people in US affected by it)
you are allowed to publish it.. and to quote many peoples favourite "american rights", the first amendment: freedom of speech and press, so anyone can publish anything thats in public
you dont even need permission from those you capture on camera.
theres a new trend happening of the 'freedom fighters' that do these things called first amendment audits where they go into outdoor public and also government(public) buildings and record inside there to test if the public employees know the first amendment and if they respond positively or negatively to being filmed

i can confirm franky is right about this. if loyce is talking about the USA then he is wrong. as long as someone is in public they can film anything they can see. and they don't need anyone's permission or anything. and they can publish the video to anywhere they want to. so if you don't want someone taking video of you sunbathing then keep the curtains drawn 

[philipma1957]

you dont have a right to privacy in public. because ITS PUBLIC

When I'm outside, you're allowed to take a picture of me, but you're not allowed to publish it. Of course there's privacy.

well most people in this forum are american so ill talk about them(and because this topic is about US congress thus people in US affected by it)
you are allowed to publish it.. and to quote many peoples favourite "american rights", the first amendment: freedom of speech and press, so anyone can publish anything thats in public
you dont even need permission from those you capture on camera.
theres a new trend happening of the 'freedom fighters' that do these things called first amendment audits where they go into outdoor public and also government(public) buildings and record inside there to test if the public employees know the first amendment and if they respond positively or negatively to being filmed

i can confirm franky is right about this. if loyce is talking about the USA then he is wrong. as long as someone is in public they can film anything they can see. and they don't need anyone's permission or anything. and they can publish the video to anywhere they want to. so if you don't want someone taking video of you sunbathing then keep the curtains drawn 

you are not correct. If I go to a public beach and film I can not show the video
without permission if the people filmed are underage.

[larry_vw_1955]

you are not correct. If I go to a public beach and film I can not show the video
without permission if the people filmed are underage.

and what law is that exactly? enlighten us. i doubt loyce is underage though. 

[DubemIfedigbo001]

https://njump.me/nevent1qqstf99gr6n408rdqqt4su3yw2agdw6ydjy69apae7pkpsgrpk7yevspzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsz9mhwden5te0dehhxarj9enx6apwwa5h5tnzd9aqz9thwden5te0v4jx2m3wdehhxarj9ekxzmnyqy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hst0vkjz

I recently learned that legislation has been drafted on Capitol Hill to classify *not re-using Bitcoin addresses* as "mixing"

There are also efforts to force "unhosted wallet providers" to collect user info for taxes

As well as to give power to Treasury to sanction any address (even Americans)

And a whole lot more bad stuff

IMO Coin Center does vital work to fight this and to protect privacy tech

They are a compact team and do a lot with the resources they have

They sue the OFAC and Treasury

They consider the Bank Secrecy Act unconstitutional and act accordingly

I just spent some time with their leadership team, asking questions, and came away impressed, I would strongly suggest a donation today

coincenter.org

Now, I have seen stupid bills proposed by this house before, but this is the absolute most ridiculous piece of legislation I have ever seen.

To say that not reusing an address is mixing? Man, what happens when someone only receives a payment one time and doesn't move the funds?

Also what is stopping people from creating a new transaction that sends the UTXO from the address back to itself in a new UTXO?

They don't even know anything about how crypto works and they are already greedy and trying to extract taxes from Americans and apparently non-Americans too since there is no way you can differentiate between them or force an open-source software to give you an ID.

Well, I think these dudes are hell bent on centralizing crypto that they are blinded to the huge repercussions to their selfishness. Do they want to open a bigger door to crypto attacks? or are they not aware multiple address is also a security feature. They also want to put an end to the core feature of bitcoin by all means. How would we feel when the Elecrum wallet which we pride so much starts asking for KYC? Its crazy and would mean an end to decentralization and a new era of centralization of bitcoin which we hope would never happen.

What if my wallet automatically creates a new change address? What if my address is no longer secure, and I need a new one?

Then you have to send in an application to the government to obtain a new wallet address which might even be compromised at the point of creation. Such irrationality in their thoughts to not know they are trying to make bitcoin less secure with this approach.

[larry_vw_1955]

How would we feel when the Elecrum wallet which we pride so much starts asking for KYC? Its crazy and would mean an end to decentralization and a new era of centralization of bitcoin which we hope would never happen.

Electrum is not even a company it's just a piece of software. Software does not have the ability to KYC people. Only companies do.

[zenaku]

It's interesting, but from how many btc (68,000)? Is this a suspicious wallet?

[zenaku]

How would we feel when the Elecrum wallet which we pride so much starts asking for KYC? Its crazy and would mean an end to decentralization and a new era of centralization of bitcoin which we hope would never happen.

Electrum is not even a company it's just a piece of software. Software does not have the ability to KYC people. Only companies do.

1.The creators of electrum came to negotiate.
2. Many users would abandon BTC (because of the news)

[franky1]

you dont have a right to privacy in public. because ITS PUBLIC

When I'm outside, you're allowed to take a picture of me, but you're not allowed to publish it. Of course there's privacy.

well most people in this forum are american so ill talk about them(and because this topic is about US congress thus people in US affected by it)
you are allowed to publish it.. and to quote many peoples favourite "american rights", the first amendment: freedom of speech and press, so anyone can publish anything thats in public
you dont even need permission from those you capture on camera.
theres a new trend happening of the 'freedom fighters' that do these things called first amendment audits where they go into outdoor public and also government(public) buildings and record inside there to test if the public employees know the first amendment and if they respond positively or negatively to being filmed

i can confirm franky is right about this. if loyce is talking about the USA then he is wrong. as long as someone is in public they can film anything they can see. and they don't need anyone's permission or anything. and they can publish the video to anywhere they want to. so if you don't want someone taking video of you sunbathing then keep the curtains drawn  

you are not correct. If I go to a public beach and film I can not show the video
without permission if the people filmed are underage.

that not a law. its not criminal to record a beach scene/public area that just happen to have kids in view

heck i just went to youtube and typed in "beach"
heck i just went to youtube and typed in "water park"
heck i just went to youtube and typed in "skate park"
heck i just went to youtube and typed in "public park"
heck i just went to youtube and typed in "recreational park"

and found LOADS of videos of amateur footage of people randomly recording their vacations and leisure time at the beach, parks and public areas that dont have kids blurred out and its obvious due to the nature of the videos that the person filming it is not some movie director who sends out a guy with a consent form.. and youtube hasnt/wont remove it

yes youtube might have policies to respect its users and so side with parent WISHES to not have their kids featured in a video on youtube. but its not a law. its a platforms own business decision. not a law/right

its not illegal to record kids while just filming in public..
yes its emotionally disrespectful/weird/pervy/creepy if you are obviously deliberately trying to film kids or nudists or topless females and yes thats 'icky' and again disrespectful and everyone has the ability to ask that you dont do it(out of resect) and people can call the cops if it appears someone is obviously recording in a way thats creepy. and cops can request(not order) it to be stopped to keep the peace. and do a investigation and if the cops find the guy recording is actually a creep then things can escalate to a crime

but the simple act of recording on a beach or water park randomly and it just happens that kids are in view does not require their parents consent

[LoyceV]

you dont have a right to privacy in public. because ITS PUBLIC

When I'm outside, you're allowed to take a picture of me, but you're not allowed to publish it. Of course there's privacy.

well most people in this forum are american

Citation needed

so ill talk about them(and because this topic is about US congress thus people in US affected by it)
you are allowed to publish it.. and to quote many peoples favourite "american rights", the first amendment: freedom of speech and press, so anyone can publish anything thats in public
you dont even need permission from those you capture on camera.

It looks like your Congress has bigger things to worry about than Bitcoin, like privacy!
Here, you can film but you can't publish. Of course, if you publish it anyway, chances are the person in the video will never find out, and if they do, they'll need to sue you for breaking privacy laws. So it's not as if the law prevents violations, and almost anyone breaks it by posting anything they see on social media. But at least on paper we have privacy

you are not correct. If I go to a public beach and film I can not show the video
without permission if the people filmed are underage.

Does this mean the restrictions have to do with sex-laws instead of privacy-laws?

yes its emotionally disrespectful/weird/pervy/creepy if you are obviously deliberately trying to film kids or nudists or topless females and yes thats 'icky' and again disrespectful

Camera phones destroyed a short time of topless women on the beach. When people finally become less prudish, it didn't take long for the internet to make them cover themselves again.

[franky1]

you are not correct. If I go to a public beach and film I can not show the video
without permission if the people filmed are underage.

Does this mean the restrictions have to do with sex-laws instead of privacy-laws?

yep not to do with privacy, but to do with sex laws..
again if someone is being obviously and intently pervy/creepy then if the outraged parent calls the cops and the cops determine its a act suspected to be related to sex crime then it can be investigated.

most people just respectfully avoid recording certain situations just to avoid accusations and disagreement, even if its not against the law to do something innocent/non-intently/non creepily

[NotATether]

yep not to do with privacy, but to do with sex laws..
again if someone is being obviously and intently pervy/creepy then if the outraged parent calls the cops and the cops determine its a act suspected to be related to sex crime then it can be investigated.

most people just respectfully avoid recording certain situations just to avoid accusations and disagreement, even if its not against the law to do something innocent/non-intently/non creepily

Each state has their own laws about this, as this is not something the federal government talks about in too much detail.

But state legislators seem to be having lots of fun arguing about the merits of this or that. Well in this case, recording people. Also they have a lot more interest arguing about sex laws than anything related to privacy. That is how most of the restrictions you just mentioned probably came about to being law.

[vapourminer]

blockchain.info used the term "taint analysis" even mtgox did and this was back in the days of 2010-2012

like i said use the forums search function for the word "taint" and do it between dates of like 4500 to 9999 days (pre 2012)
and you will surprise yourself at how the bitcoin community was talking about taint far before governments even started regulating money services/exchanges

yes can confirm. i checked my coins for "taint" back in 2011-2012ish somewhere. they were straight from a mining pool so they were deemed "clean"

forum consensus was it (taint) was a non issue back then iirc

[DooMAD]

you are not correct. If I go to a public beach and film I can not show the video
without permission if the people filmed are underage.

and what law is that exactly? enlighten us. i doubt loyce is underage though. 

We're clearly reaching the point where the arguments being made are no longer relevant to the topic at hand. You can buy into franky1's absolutist, black-and-white view of the world, where he pretends that he and he alone can determine the outcome of all things.  Or, you can come back to reality where nuance is a real thing that people comprehend.  I personally find his wild delusions have precisely zero influence on what really happens in this world (outside of his magical world of make-believe).  When it comes down to it, a court will decide an outcome to whatever hypothetical scenario it is you're making.  Until such an incident goes to trial, it's generally considered a fool's errand to assume the outcome until the specifics are heard and deliberated upon.

[PrivacyG]

then why are you so adamant that you NEED to give away your own coin and get someone elses coin
and you want other people to join you in your schemes you promote

Because Chain Analysis is trying to destroy what was once known as Fungibility and ways of obfuscation such as Mixers, Atomic Swaps, Coin Joins et cetera are bringing it right back.  Not by 'removing Taint', because ultimately ALL ADDRESSES ARE AND WILL BE 'TAINTED' AT SOME POINT, but by breaking links Chain Analysis are using to destroy the Fungibility Bitcoin once had.

It is utterly stupid to believe in Taint because you most likely own UTXOs coming from previous Hacks, Crime, Money Laundering et cetera.  Why are you not collaborating with Chain Analysis companies to let you know which of your Coins are Tainted so you can throw them at a known 'Burn Address' of Bitcoin just so you know you got rid of Tainted Bitcoin?

the only reason you want to pretend taint does not exist is so you can con innocent people into thinking there is no repercussions of them taking your coin...

There are no repercussions of them taking my Bitcoin.  I am not responsible for later actions of people such as using stupid Services that are able to freeze Accounts out of mere suspicions according to a subjective analysis, or even randomly.  There is a history of people depositing even Binance or Coinbase withdrawals on other platforms and getting their Accounts frozen up out of no where.  Is that my fault?  You can transfer Peer to Peer with no 'repercussions'.  You can use any non Know Your Customer Exchange.  How am I using any of these with no repercussions?

-----

It looks like your Congress has bigger things to worry about than Bitcoin, like privacy!
Here, you can film but you can't publish. Of course, if you publish it anyway, chances are the person in the video will never find out, and if they do, they'll need to sue you for breaking privacy laws.

And in other countries such as Austria, it is not legal to drive around with a Dashboard Camera on your car.  A few years ago at least, it was ruled in Court that it is breaking the Privacy of people.

Franky can not think outside the box and see the real problem here.  If the United States promote little to no rights to Privacy, it means the roots of the problem are much deeper.  And even if we speak from outside the United States, it is impossible NOT to have an input considering the United States are influencing the entire world.  So Franky, ask yourself, are we the problem for asking for Privacy or is it a problem that you have no right to it?

[franky1]

you are not correct. If I go to a public beach and film I can not show the video
without permission if the people filmed are underage.

and what law is that exactly? enlighten us. i doubt loyce is underage though.  

We're clearly reaching the point where the arguments being made are no longer relevant to the topic at hand. You can buy into franky1's absolutist, black-and-white view of the world, where he pretends that he and he alone can determine the outcome of all things.  Or, you can come back to reality where nuance is a real thing that people comprehend.  I personally find his wild delusions have precisely zero influence on what really happens in this world (outside of his magical world of make-believe).  When it comes down to it, a court will decide an outcome to whatever hypothetical scenario it is you're making.  Until such an incident goes to trial, it's generally considered a fool's errand to assume the outcome until the specifics are heard and deliberated upon.

funnily enough i was the one telling the other readers that laws are not preventative as an absolute guarantee and instead are dealt with after the fact in court
as for black and white.. im the one telling readers that things like suspicion, taint, mixing, tumbling are handled by monitoring/analysis algo on a scale.. not black and white

so again its doomad that cant read or understand the conversations happening in a topic

[larry_vw_1955]

maybe bitcoin should have been designed with mixing built into the mining protocol somehow so that all the transactions in a block got mixed together somehow. that would probably keep the regulator scratching their heads. but i guess we never got that far. I bet PrivacyG would support something like that though.