(hit the wrong thread by mistake).
From what he mentions, it sounds like this might apply just to exchanges that need to track who’s sending and receiving money.
If that’s the case, I don’t really see it as an issue. You've already sort of confirmed that the address belongs to you in the T&Cs, so this just tightens that up a bit.
The UK has had some rules since 2021 saying that anyone acting as an exchange (whether it’s p2p or whatever) might have to register with them to keep trading which seems like a way to get a better handle on who’s doing the exchanging and what’s going on...
If it comes to pass it'll be the US throwing away any lead they may have. As Our Brian points out there are many scenarios where it's simply not possible to do what they're proposing. Americans are already more trouble than they're worth for companies outside. Looks like they're keen to amp that up.
It's not as if everyone is being forced to wear a Bitcoin star of David but it would be nice if they thought these things through properly.
Well, if the law passes the govt will need to conduct identity verification on every user that downloads a crypto wallet. This will potentially put the financial privacy of many investors at risk. Could this be the reason why Bitcoin has hit an intraday low of $17,150?
There is arguably only one possible countermeasure that can be undertaken by true bitcoiners: stop using centralized exchanges for buying/selling bitcoin and start engaging in the bitcoin circular economy. The former will definitely help you in achieving the latter because in order to acquire/spend your bitcoin, you would require to interact with other "non-compliant" bitcoiners. Some still fail to grasp, that being a bitcoiner means being a rebel.
Honestly, if the legislation will be enforced in our country as well I don't have any idea on how to deal with that not to countermeasure it. Since anonymity and personal information will be at stake in this plan I should be keen on this regulation and how other Bitcoin holders will respond and react to this.
I tend to agree, it could be the immediate response that will countermeasure this and on my end, I might also do the same thing in the meantime when the US government starts to implement their plan to retain my anonymity and secure my finances.
Nope. But you'd better live seven years after handing them over if it's a sufficiently large amount or it's inheritance taxable just like anything else of value would be.
Decentralized Tokenized BTC
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5288914
Decentralized bitcoin trading
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5290331
&
Decentralized trading protocol Uniswap
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5268409
This is just the beginning Many other cross-chain solutions are coming soon in the Polkadot ecosystem.
This is only one step before the 6012.
If you declare your holdings, they will be able to take them away whenever they like.
If you don't, you'll be an outlaw.
This is rather chilling news. I hope Coinbase and other lobbyists have some success in deterring the Treasury Department.
Now we have some context for this rather thoughtful piece published by CoinCenter last week: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Unhosted Wallets
Indeed, that's one of the first things that comes to mind, although I see that as more of an eventuality. If you look closely at what Brian Armstrong is saying, the rumored regulations seem to focus on VASPs and a potential requirement to verify the owner of an address before fulfilling withdrawal or other requests. It's an expansion of KYC into KYCC -- "Know your customer's customer."
That's still far removed from forcing Bitcoin holders to disclose their holdings and public addresses. You're right however, that this is the direction things are likely headed in the future.
Avoiding centralized exchanges does help if the regulation only affects exchanges, rather than private citizens, which seems to be the case:
So it seems like they want to tighten down KYC/AML requirements so that exchanges are legally obliged to withhold not only fiat, but also crypto funds. Some exchanges already have been preemptively doing this, but governmental regulation of these requirements looks like very bad news.
The water is slowly boiling and everyone going through centralized exchanges is sitting in the pot.
To me it seems like they are going to regulate non-custodial wallets via exchanges only though, not by means of requiring everyone who downloads a Bitcoin wallet to register with government officials. At least that's what the rest of the Twitter thread seems to imply, but granted, it's not fully clear at this point. It would be bad news either way though.
It's kinda scary in a sense that they are getting even more aggressive on these regulations by the day, thinking that even personal wallets need to be disclosed in order for them to monitor activities of people. Combatting money laundering and other illegal activities through the use of cryptocurrencies is not enough justification for this regulation should it ever come into realization. It's just invasive on the privacy of individual investors not wanting to deal with the stress of filing and whatnot. But then again, all of these is inevitable as bitcoin continues to grow bigger and bigger each day.
https://twitter.com/CoinCornerDanny/status/1332307237608501249
Here's an interesting thread about someone who had a similar possibility from the Isle of Man's regulator. He makes the point that when you withdraw cash from an ATM you're not forced to prove anything.
Obviously the US government is a mindless monolith that doesn't give a shit about anything so it may well happen anyway. This guy picked it apart successfully for his jurisdiction but it's a teensy and agile one.
Last I pulled cash out from atm I used a bank card.
I was forced to prove a lot of kyc to get the bank card.
And when I actually used it in the atm I was forced to enter the correct pin.
KYC is coming like it or not.
Yup. But it's just the same for an exchange. You're already KYC'd when you withdraw from it. An extra step like this adds a needless dollop of onerousness. They like those.
I do not really understand the meaning of this bill.
Let's say I withdraw bitcoins from the exchange address to another address (I can declare that this is my address, that is, I move the cryptocurrency between my wallets).
Legal requirements have been met.
Well, then I can dispose of my funds as I want. I am not obliged to set the owner of the wallet to whom I will send my funds?
it's not a bill. it's not legislation being passed by congress. these would be unilateral regulations issued by trump's treasury department, and they're still just rumors at this point.
from the sound of things, that's as far as these regulations will go, yes.
that's just the centralized exchange angle though. this could affect other use cases like buying goods with bitcoin through a 3rd party like bitpay, or defi contracts supported by centralized parties, etc. it's possible that KYC requirements may become attached to things like that.
how about encrypting your traffic as an alternative? or are you paranoid about VPN operators too?
i get where you're coming from though. i already avoid mobile wallets because i fly a lot. when i use them, it's just as a throwaway. in fact, i'm trying to get in the habit of only traveling with factory reset devices. they don't need probable cause to search you, and i'd rather not have customs wondering how many figures are in my bitcoin wallet...