This can't be real

[BlackHatCoiner]

It's treated just like any other property. Like always, the state tries to get its hand as much onto individuals' properties as possible. I wouldn't be surprised if one day, an executive order 6102 was issued but for cryptocurrencies on exchanges.

That was probably the 67th sign you needed to get your coins off exchanges. Just stick with a hardware wallet and sleep easy at night knowing the state can't touch your sats.

[Y3shot]

This will only affect those who use exchanges to hodl their coins because the government has full control of the exchange. This will explain better to those who are very interested in keeping their coins in exchanges. There are so many threats in hodling Bitcoin in exchanges: the threat of hacks, scams, and the government. A non-custodial wallet is the best for hodling Bitcoin because there is no form of intimidation or whatever that can make anyone have control or access to your assets. Not your keys, not your coins. I'm glad for this upcoming help because it will make people understand what they need to know.

[Antona]

This will only affect those who use exchanges to hodl their coins because the government has full control of the exchange. This will explain better to those who are very interested in keeping their coins in exchanges. There are so many threats in hodling Bitcoin in exchanges: the threat of hacks, scams, and the government. A non-custodial wallet is the best for hodling Bitcoin because there is no form of intimidation or whatever that can make anyone have control or access to your assets. Not your keys, not your coins. I'm glad for this upcoming help because it will make people understand what they need to know.

Exactly this can't be stressed enough. Keeping coins on an exchange is like leaving your gold bars in a stranger's warehouse, they have the key not you, the government a hacker or the exchange's own insolvency can take it overnight, the "upcoming help" is good but the lesson is timeless move to self-custody, start small, learn the process, then move the rest.

[Achalugo BTC]

This will only affect those who use exchanges to hodl their coins because the government has full control of the exchange. This will explain better to those who are very interested in keeping their coins in exchanges. There are so many threats in hodling Bitcoin in exchanges: the threat of hacks, scams, and the government. A non-custodial wallet is the best for hodling Bitcoin because there is no form of intimidation or whatever that can make anyone have control or access to your assets. Not your keys, not your coins. I'm glad for this upcoming help because it will make people understand what they need to know.

You are totally right, which is why people should do what they know its the right thing to do, that is they should be good at verifying information about some certain things like wallets, especially those that wants to hold Bitcoin for a long time.
And this will help them to know the right thing to do and at the right time as well, which will also help them to prevent some common mistakes that will cause them more of harm than good.
Which they will also be able to detect which one is fake and which one is real and can also be able to detect when its a scam, which will help or prevent them from falling into pitfalls. That is why people should be careful and be at alert incase of any unnecessary drama, they will be able to tackle it without really be affected.

[Alone055]

Nothing surprising or unexpected for me, because if governments start regulating cryptocurrencies and related platforms, they will do things their way, and their way is to give us no privacy, especially when it comes to our finances or financial activities, because they want to have complete access to our accounts, the balances we have in them, and they want to see whatever transactions we make from any of our financial accounts, and they have this control with traditional currencies and accounts, and now they want to have the same level of control with cryptocurrencies as well, so they are making their way towards it.

Besides, people who are active in the crypto industry don't need to worry about such a law or bill because they won't keep their coins idle for three straight years, and those who are holding for the long term will probably not keep their coins in a centralized exchange or custodial wallet, and if someone does it, they are completely out of their mind or they lack basic knowledge or understanding about how they should keep their assets if they are planning to not use them regularly.

[Nwada001]

Exactly this can't be stressed enough. Keeping coins on an exchange is like leaving your gold bars in a stranger's warehouse, they have the key not you, the government a hacker or the exchange's own insolvency can take it overnight, the "upcoming help" is good but the lesson is timeless move to self-custody, start small, learn the process, then move the rest.

Some people are just too lazy or too scared to take responsibility for holding their own coin and know that the entire safety of that asset is on them, which is why most of them have chosen to use exchanges instead of their private wallet. They believe that it's safer that way, and even if anything happens, it's easier for them to get repaid by the exchange, and they don't think far enough to realize that bankruptcy is real. And even after new rules that could have pushed them to start using self-custody wallets, they still prefer to keep the exchange active rather than sending to a private wallet.

[Asuspawer09]

I mean, if that is true, it is straight up ridiculous just thinking about it, but I guess blockchain is still anonymous you could hide your identity if you know what you are doin there was no way they are going to know that even if they track all of the address, there are a lot of things that I dont think they can't easily implement how do they know the location of the addresses, if they are going to track the untouched address I mean there are just million or even billions of address out there you can't track its location.

Pretty sure if your Bitcoin is on a safe wallet, your key your coin there was no way they could track seize that, it might be on the exchange since it is still businesses they might be able to track your account on that, or even through your banks, I mean if we are talking about legallities if it is a bill already I mean just comply it's not really that difficult you just need to maybe atleast have some transactions right? not just holding a coin untouched for a long years, I mean it's doable rather than stressing how you are going to take it out or withdraw it.

[pawel7777]

This is the first time I'm hearing this, but the bill was introduced in February 2025, so it's almost a year old.
The state of California must be desperate for money if they resort to such blatant money-grab tactics.
I'm not sure how much they are hoping to benefit from that. Maybe they're looking to grab some long-forgotten balances, or perhaps they are after cryptos of deceased people, who either have no next of kin, or whose families are not aware of their crypto holdings.
I don't expect this will make any significant income to the state's budget.

Or maybe California's legislators are secretly good guys and this is their way of reminding people to use non-custodial wallets, which, for obvious reasons, won't be affected.

[Rgram]

Funny how criminal elements want to use the disguise of the law or constitution to claim that which is someone else’s property, censor Bitcoin and have a great deal of control over it. Governments and its officials are the real thieves in our world today.

When they aren’t having better ways to increase the economy of a state through productions and work force, they find means to steal from its citizens thereby, creating a whole different problem of a different kind.

They just show us what a weapon they would have whirled if Bitcoin was centralized, it’s a good thing Bitcoin is decentralized and their would be ways to navigate through these policies successfully.

[DPHOR]

If is something like this is passed into law concerning about the bitcoin then should be true about the bitcoin that is why you must not holding your asset on a particular wallets or it would be that ideal for you to keep moving your investment towards different wallet as this new law will for sure affects almost everyone who are doing short term investment or can be moving them within different wallets when it either getting close to 3 years time and may actually discourage some people not to do their investment on bitcoin.

[Pi-network314159]

Can someone please confirm if this is real? Someone close sent me this news this morning that you can't keep holding your coins for three years straight untouched anymore, the law will claim it.

I don't know how true this is, but I believe this can only work on exchange but can not work on non custodial wallet where you have the authority and power to make  decition on how and when to do any transactions. That's why it is often said not your key not your coin, which signifies that if you don't have access to your wallet, then it means that you are already doomed. People has been warned to stay clear from HODLing Bitcoin or any other coin in exchange simply because anything can happen at any given Time. Just bear it in mind that any coin you don't hold in your non custodial wallet is just a risk. Apart from your coin being taken by government, exchange hack may still affect it someday.

[Sammye3]

If this is true, it would be a really bad approach from the California government and another means of "victimisation". It's not entirely possible for someone's assets to be "claimed" by the government in actual sense but it could be seized or other methods like blocking withdrawals would also be implemented.

Does it really make sense to seize an untouched asset? This act would really make so many people lose interest in centralized exchanges and turn to DEX. It is only possible that the government gain partial access to personal accounts when the companies (CEX) grant them permission upon certain government instruction and they could monitor transactions history, holder's balance and the rest, and this is a form of privacy violation.

[ancafe]

Funny how criminal elements want to use the disguise of the law or constitution to claim that which is someone else’s property, censor Bitcoin and have a great deal of control over it. Governments and its officials are the real thieves in our world today.

When they aren’t having better ways to increase the economy of a state through productions and work force, they find means to steal from its citizens thereby, creating a whole different problem of a different kind.

Sometimes we are confused by the policies that governments continue to implement, claiming several unreasonable reasons under the guise of legality. The government should provide legal certainty for its citizens and should the government create policies that should benefit them. For example, the policy claims that if assets are stored on an exchange untouched for three years, the government can seize them for various reasons and perhaps they will create regulations.

We know that Bitcoin assets are not suitable for storage on an exchange because they are vulnerable to anything that could harm the owner if something happens. But government policies that can harm people in this context are the same as robbing its own citizens, only using legitimate regulations as a pretext.

[AbuBhakar]

Sometimes we are confused by the policies that governments continue to implement, claiming several unreasonable reasons under the guise of legality. The government should provide legal certainty for its citizens and should the government create policies that should benefit them. For example, the policy claims that if assets are stored on an exchange untouched for three years, the government can seize them for various reasons and perhaps they will create regulations.

We know that Bitcoin assets are not suitable for storage on an exchange because they are vulnerable to anything that could harm the owner if something happens. But government policies that can harm people in this context are the same as robbing its own citizens, only using legitimate regulations as a pretext.

The best thing to do if you are one of those affected by these policies is to keep your assets in your own wallet and do not use a centralized exchange to save BTC or any other cryptocurrency. Your assets are not safe if you keep them in a centralized exchange, especially since your personal details need to be updated regularly here to prevent possible money laundering as per government rules in the future. They just think that if a wallet is no longer used, the owner has left it or forgotten about it, so they want to take its contents, but for me, the 3-year grace period is too short. It's possible that the owner simply forgot that he still had assets left, or maybe he was too busy in real life and couldn't take care of his assets, so he just left them aside for the time being, not knowing the possible consequences if it lasted for a long time.

[Hispo]

...

Does it really make sense to seize an untouched asset? This act would really make so many people lose interest in centralized exchanges and turn to DEX. It is only possible that the government gain partial access to personal accounts when the companies (CEX) grant them permission upon certain government instruction and they could monitor transactions history, holder's balance and the rest, and this is a form of privacy violation.

I am pretty sure one has already give up on one's privacy from the very moment one decided to join a centralized exchange and submitted one's personal information, though.

Legally CEX are forced to comply with any request of financial information of their users by the local government, so even if one does not have "abandoned" coins on exchanges like Binance US or Coinbase, still the government of the United States can know who you are and how much money you have accumulated in the account. This is just a thread which highlight the Californian way to treat holders of crypto in their specific jurisdiction when compared to others which are not so aggressive.

[Oasisman]

Well, I think they are pushing the crypto enthusiast with no choice but to use cold wallets, and with this kind of law, they just add another layer to the definition of "Not your keys, not your coins."
The most affected by this are most likely the exchanges and custodial wallets. I don't know, but in this case, banks may have better rules in terms of account dormancy. In 3-5 years, banks are going to gradually charge your account for being inactive, until nothing's left. While this law against dormant crypto accounts states that they are going to seize everything after 3 years of being inactive, it just doesn't seem right.

[Bitcoin_people]

I read this news a long time ago, however, it is not true. This legal bill was passed in California, if any crypto coins are in an inactive wallet for a long time, they can claim it, it was allowed. However, if inactive wallets are activated once every three years, then there will be no loss of the type of assets of the users. However, I think that using non-custodial wallets is very good for the users, as their money will be in custody and will not be lost.

[OsaiEmma]

If we're talking about custodial wallets (exchanges), cause I don't think anyone, most especially the government can just have access and seize ur coins from a noncustodial wallet, then I think it will be crazy to not login from time to time to see the progress, cause, from the picture you posted, it says if you haven't logged in or carried out any activities, not just holding it there.

So, if someone haven't logged in or checked out his exchange account where he has some coin(BTC) for 3 years, then it's either they are dead and no one knows how to access it or they just don't care about it, if the government seizes it, good riddance

[BitBakerr1]

I saw the News too but why are the government always looking for ways to bring us down and control our finances this is so unacceptable if they are bringing this law why not also say if someone is saving in the bank for 3 years they will take his or her money maybe very soon they can even say it, the government is actually against cryptocurrency and I have seen it.
If this law has been established I will advise those that are using exchange to stop using it because it's not advisable to do that, If you use noncustodial wallet you will not be affected by this there useless law.

[laspol65]

Can someone please confirm if this is real? Someone close sent me this news this morning that you can't keep holding your coins for three years straight untouched anymore, the law will claim it.



This can't be real right?  Right now I believe this is some made up nonsense, and if it's real we are all f

Anyone from California can easily confirm it, I have no one living in California but other states in USA.

I would say from my perspective that Bitcoin should not be kept in a custodial wallet, as the government may not be able to claim it. But if you store Bitcoin in a non-custodial wallet and keep the keys safe, it will definitely be safe. This California law certainly sounds strange, so everyone should use the right wallet and keep the keys safe.