EU to make Bitcoin traceable, ban anonymous crypto wallets(euronews.com)
euronews.com
EU to make Bitcoin traceable, ban anonymous crypto wallets
https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/21/eu-will-make-bitcoin-traceable-and-ban-anonymous-crypto-wallets-in-anti-money-laundering-d
266 comments
HN tends to have a lot of people who are good at technical analysis and allergic to hyperbolic marketing. By now there's been a decade of Bitcoin proponents endlessly repeating claims which are either untrue or highly aspirational while it continues to very expensively not deliver results.
This brings me to the second part: anyone who does care about privacy is _especially_ not going to recommend use of Bitcoin since a system which requires you to make an irrepudiable public record of your transactions is actually worse than the status quo. Similarly, people will confabulate about it allegedly being “uncensorable” when it's both easy to censor and, being public, extremely risky for anyone concerned about censorship to use.
This brings me to the second part: anyone who does care about privacy is _especially_ not going to recommend use of Bitcoin since a system which requires you to make an irrepudiable public record of your transactions is actually worse than the status quo. Similarly, people will confabulate about it allegedly being “uncensorable” when it's both easy to censor and, being public, extremely risky for anyone concerned about censorship to use.
I'm not sure how you can call it worse than the status quo.
Last week my bank informed me that I passed my ATM limit for the year and it's going to give me a small daily allowance for the rest of the year. And then lied me on the phone that it's a requirement from the central bank. This is neither a joke nor a metaphor - this literally happened to me this month (ING in Romania -they're widely considered the best bank here). Ah, they're an ATM-only bank, they have no tellers, so I can simply not take my money out, unless I make an account with another bank and have it transferred. And this just means I'm going to hit another set of limits.
There is a concerted effort to control the financial movements of the population. If you fit within common patterns you don't see it. I'm probably barely at the edge - I've moved on the order of tens of thousands - and I'm hitting it pretty hard. Revolut had my account completely blocked for a couple of months earlier this year, while completely ignoring my calls. Couldn't even close it, since it was not on zero and couldn't take money out of it. And this was for moving around on the order of thousands over a few months, mostly sending money to a few friends. This is not money laundering, this is simply using the money I make very legitimately and paying taxes for.
Last week my bank informed me that I passed my ATM limit for the year and it's going to give me a small daily allowance for the rest of the year. And then lied me on the phone that it's a requirement from the central bank. This is neither a joke nor a metaphor - this literally happened to me this month (ING in Romania -they're widely considered the best bank here). Ah, they're an ATM-only bank, they have no tellers, so I can simply not take my money out, unless I make an account with another bank and have it transferred. And this just means I'm going to hit another set of limits.
There is a concerted effort to control the financial movements of the population. If you fit within common patterns you don't see it. I'm probably barely at the edge - I've moved on the order of tens of thousands - and I'm hitting it pretty hard. Revolut had my account completely blocked for a couple of months earlier this year, while completely ignoring my calls. Couldn't even close it, since it was not on zero and couldn't take money out of it. And this was for moving around on the order of thousands over a few months, mostly sending money to a few friends. This is not money laundering, this is simply using the money I make very legitimately and paying taxes for.
Worse from the perspective of privacy: right now, if you use cash your transactions are not traceable and if you use electronic systems they're subject to whatever rules the institutions you use have (e.g. your bank definitely knows who you interacted with for as long as they retain that data).
Bitcoin, on the other hand, makes every transaction public and permanent so anyone in the world can track you and they can retroactively link your activity at any point in the future. If you're trying to stay anonymous, every transaction you make is an opportunity to have your identity permanently revealed if you or the other party are compromised. If, say, you make a donation to a political campaign now and power changes hands a couple of years later, there's no way to retroactively scrub that record. People will say “oh, use a tumbler” — which is again putting a permanent “I'm trying to hide illegal activity” flag up in any of the situations where you really need it (not to mention the risk of being caught in someone else's activity and having to explain that you had no idea that you were using the same tumbler as a mafioso).
Note that I'm definitely not saying that the status quo is great, only that I think it's worse to make promises which the system cannot deliver. If people actually believe the Bitcoin salespeople and act as if it's privacy-preserving, they're at more risk than doing nothing at all.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, makes every transaction public and permanent so anyone in the world can track you and they can retroactively link your activity at any point in the future. If you're trying to stay anonymous, every transaction you make is an opportunity to have your identity permanently revealed if you or the other party are compromised. If, say, you make a donation to a political campaign now and power changes hands a couple of years later, there's no way to retroactively scrub that record. People will say “oh, use a tumbler” — which is again putting a permanent “I'm trying to hide illegal activity” flag up in any of the situations where you really need it (not to mention the risk of being caught in someone else's activity and having to explain that you had no idea that you were using the same tumbler as a mafioso).
Note that I'm definitely not saying that the status quo is great, only that I think it's worse to make promises which the system cannot deliver. If people actually believe the Bitcoin salespeople and act as if it's privacy-preserving, they're at more risk than doing nothing at all.
> People will say “oh, use a tumbler” — which is again putting a permanent “I'm trying to hide illegal activity” flag up in any of the situations where you really need it
This is probably a correct analysis. It's very disheartening though.
Replace tumbler with encryption and you'll get the picture. My desire for privacy shouldn't be a reason to "Minority Report" me.
By the way, I know you didn't say otherwise - I'm just pointing out how bad the status quo can be.
This is probably a correct analysis. It's very disheartening though.
Replace tumbler with encryption and you'll get the picture. My desire for privacy shouldn't be a reason to "Minority Report" me.
By the way, I know you didn't say otherwise - I'm just pointing out how bad the status quo can be.
Oh, I agree — the part of me which grew up reading the CYPHERPUNKS-L list wants this to work but one of the big things I've learned is how all of the fun cryptography is just a tiny part of a social system.
The worse than status quo comment of the grandparent refers to privacy, in the current system your bank (and whomever they sell the data to) knows everything, in a public and transparent ledger possibly everyone knows about what you use your coins for. It's not the case of Bitcoin right now but this move is concerning in this regard.
I'd like to hear more about such limits. Do they base it on total money withdrawn, or number of withdrawals? If you don't mind, what was the limit approximately? Is it only about cash withdrawals, can you use card and online payments as before?
About 60k eur anually.
It's ironic, but a fair share of my withdrawals were simply because the pandemic made me want to have a cash reserve on hand, in case of emergencies. Plus a used car purchase and some renovations. Very white money, taxes already paid.
It's ironic, but a fair share of my withdrawals were simply because the pandemic made me want to have a cash reserve on hand, in case of emergencies. Plus a used car purchase and some renovations. Very white money, taxes already paid.
Interesting that there's a limit. That's also probably many times more than I have withdrawn in my whole lifetime.
Aren't cash transactions over 5000 eur illegal in whole EU? The limit certainly stems from there (even if it isn't explicitly set by central bank). I'd definitely have lawyer on retainer if I personally moved 60k/year in cash around.
The privacy comes from the system being censorship resistant, so the platform itself can not require you to KYC yourself to the state in order to use it, or be shut down or blocked by the state.
The irrepudiable public record of transactions is needed to make it censorship resistant, and does indeed come with severe privacy risks, though those can be mitigated with zk-proof cryptography (e.g. https://aztec.network/).
The irrepudiable public record of transactions is needed to make it censorship resistant, and does indeed come with severe privacy risks, though those can be mitigated with zk-proof cryptography (e.g. https://aztec.network/).
> The privacy comes from the system being censorship resistant, so the platform itself can not require you to KYC yourself to the state in order to use it, or be shut down or blocked by the state.
That's definitely a good example of the sales pitch, but think about how it works in the real world:
1. Nobody wants random numbers, so you have to link your Bitcoin addresses to real world identities on every transaction. Anyone you deal with can deanonymize you if required or compromised, which means that if you actually have cause for concern this is not a system you can trust.
2. Almost all transactions will require conversion to real currency at an exchange. This is, of course, a great place for a government to require KYC since the exchanges and businesses in your country are subject to local laws.
3. The network requires an easily-blocked protocol to send large amounts of data on a continuous basis. This makes it easy for a government to block unapproved exchanges — and, of course, since trying to circumvent the system is effectively waving an “illegal activity here!” flag that means that any transactions you try to make over something like a VPN have a high level of risk unless they're parties which you are certain are fully outside of your government's control. How much do you really trust that guy who says he works for the resistance with your full transaction history?
4. The next point on the sales pitch is usually “use a tumbler” or “use separate wallets for everything”. These are impractical on a regular basis, guaranteeing that people will be compromised by mistakes and again have their full public transaction history linked, and there's a huge trust problem: do you really believe everyone you interact with will keep your identity history? Will you ever make a mistake and use the wrong wallet? Will you always have so much money available that you never need to transfer funds? What happens when the police search your phone and find a banned Bitcoin client, which is to say a signed confession? Are you certain the tumbler you're using isn't compromised or run by the police? What happens when the police find someone else using the same tumbler to launder money and now you're being charged as an accomplice for the mob and are trying to prove that you were just breaking the law for some lesser crime and had no knowledge of what those guys were doing?
None of that is practical: real people are not going to want or reliably keep some kind of strict opsec regimen AND they're not capable of vetting that the software is actually implementing the promised privacy features. If you actually care about censorship, the first questions you'd want to think more deeply about are how people discover and use this system: can you be certain that the exchange someone told you was private isn't a sting operation? Is the person you're trying to send money to really who you think, and operating with perfect opsec?
At every point, the answer is “it's safer to use real cash” because then at least your risk exposure is limited to a single transaction at a specific point in time rather than a retroactive unveiling of your lifetime history.
Now, that's not great and it'll be cool if someone does come up with a truly robust anonymous system but that is not and never will be Bitcoin so it's recklessly irresponsible to run around telling people that Bitcoin is good for privacy and censorship avoidance when it can never meet those goals. It's also irresponsible to tell people that some new thing which was just developed is safe to use when it'll take decades both to prove that and develop safe community practices around the tool — many of the approaches people have hypothesized are not known to be safe in the context of an adversary with significant network visibility or statistical analysis capacity.
The other thing to remember, as we've seen with cryptography, is that you need to look at the whole system. One very nice trait about cash is that it's a robust system: I don't need to analyze a complex software stack and operating network to understand the threat model. It doesn't help anyone if, say, someone comes up with a great anonymous coin system but the local government is actively promoting exchanges and apps which are compromised — and even if you really are correct in believing that your opsec will be perfect for life, that's probably not true of everyone you deal with.
That's definitely a good example of the sales pitch, but think about how it works in the real world:
1. Nobody wants random numbers, so you have to link your Bitcoin addresses to real world identities on every transaction. Anyone you deal with can deanonymize you if required or compromised, which means that if you actually have cause for concern this is not a system you can trust.
2. Almost all transactions will require conversion to real currency at an exchange. This is, of course, a great place for a government to require KYC since the exchanges and businesses in your country are subject to local laws.
3. The network requires an easily-blocked protocol to send large amounts of data on a continuous basis. This makes it easy for a government to block unapproved exchanges — and, of course, since trying to circumvent the system is effectively waving an “illegal activity here!” flag that means that any transactions you try to make over something like a VPN have a high level of risk unless they're parties which you are certain are fully outside of your government's control. How much do you really trust that guy who says he works for the resistance with your full transaction history?
4. The next point on the sales pitch is usually “use a tumbler” or “use separate wallets for everything”. These are impractical on a regular basis, guaranteeing that people will be compromised by mistakes and again have their full public transaction history linked, and there's a huge trust problem: do you really believe everyone you interact with will keep your identity history? Will you ever make a mistake and use the wrong wallet? Will you always have so much money available that you never need to transfer funds? What happens when the police search your phone and find a banned Bitcoin client, which is to say a signed confession? Are you certain the tumbler you're using isn't compromised or run by the police? What happens when the police find someone else using the same tumbler to launder money and now you're being charged as an accomplice for the mob and are trying to prove that you were just breaking the law for some lesser crime and had no knowledge of what those guys were doing?
None of that is practical: real people are not going to want or reliably keep some kind of strict opsec regimen AND they're not capable of vetting that the software is actually implementing the promised privacy features. If you actually care about censorship, the first questions you'd want to think more deeply about are how people discover and use this system: can you be certain that the exchange someone told you was private isn't a sting operation? Is the person you're trying to send money to really who you think, and operating with perfect opsec?
At every point, the answer is “it's safer to use real cash” because then at least your risk exposure is limited to a single transaction at a specific point in time rather than a retroactive unveiling of your lifetime history.
Now, that's not great and it'll be cool if someone does come up with a truly robust anonymous system but that is not and never will be Bitcoin so it's recklessly irresponsible to run around telling people that Bitcoin is good for privacy and censorship avoidance when it can never meet those goals. It's also irresponsible to tell people that some new thing which was just developed is safe to use when it'll take decades both to prove that and develop safe community practices around the tool — many of the approaches people have hypothesized are not known to be safe in the context of an adversary with significant network visibility or statistical analysis capacity.
The other thing to remember, as we've seen with cryptography, is that you need to look at the whole system. One very nice trait about cash is that it's a robust system: I don't need to analyze a complex software stack and operating network to understand the threat model. It doesn't help anyone if, say, someone comes up with a great anonymous coin system but the local government is actively promoting exchanges and apps which are compromised — and even if you really are correct in believing that your opsec will be perfect for life, that's probably not true of everyone you deal with.
>>3. The network requires an easily-blocked protocol to send large amounts of data on a continuous basis
No, you only need to be able to receive/transmit the data relating to your own addresses when using a light client. The full nodes can sit outside of any censored country.
>>The next point on the sales pitch is usually “use a tumbler” or “use separate wallets for everything”. These are impractical on a regular basis, guaranteeing that people will be compromised by mistakes and again have their full public transaction history linked, and there's a huge trust problem
I agree that that is true with Bitcoin, and that is why I don't promote Bitcoin.
>>It doesn't help anyone if, say, someone comes up with a great anonymous coin system but the local government is actively promoting exchanges and apps which are compromised
Good point.
No, you only need to be able to receive/transmit the data relating to your own addresses when using a light client. The full nodes can sit outside of any censored country.
>>The next point on the sales pitch is usually “use a tumbler” or “use separate wallets for everything”. These are impractical on a regular basis, guaranteeing that people will be compromised by mistakes and again have their full public transaction history linked, and there's a huge trust problem
I agree that that is true with Bitcoin, and that is why I don't promote Bitcoin.
>>It doesn't help anyone if, say, someone comes up with a great anonymous coin system but the local government is actively promoting exchanges and apps which are compromised
Good point.
> No, you only need to be able to receive/transmit the data relating to your own addresses when using a light client. The full nodes can sit outside of any censored country.
Yes but don’t you think the government would monitor traffic to those and either block connections which aren’t made by approved local banks or ask you to prove you weren’t evading local laws? I just don’t see how this could safely be addressed with an optional network most people have no reason to use.
Yes but don’t you think the government would monitor traffic to those and either block connections which aren’t made by approved local banks or ask you to prove you weren’t evading local laws? I just don’t see how this could safely be addressed with an optional network most people have no reason to use.
>>Yes but don’t you think the government would monitor traffic to those and either block connections which aren’t made by approved local banks or ask you to prove you weren’t evading local laws?
It's very little data being used by light clients, that can be routed a thousand different ways, not to mention encrypted.
And yes governments could certainly do a lot of things but I think that as the object of enforcement becomes the end users, the political cost of enforcing laws against technologies becomes higher, and a blanket crypto ban would require pretty Draconian measures against end users.
It's very little data being used by light clients, that can be routed a thousand different ways, not to mention encrypted.
And yes governments could certainly do a lot of things but I think that as the object of enforcement becomes the end users, the political cost of enforcing laws against technologies becomes higher, and a blanket crypto ban would require pretty Draconian measures against end users.
HN is different depending on the time of the day. It's 02:00AM here in Europe, most of it at least. So the opinions that you see are not Europe time opinions but USA time opinions. I'm going to sleep now, but I'm part of the crowd that is strongly in favor of this type of regulations. I doubt that is going to be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
HN is not a person but many different people in different places. Your message and mine will be probably received differently at another time of the day.
HN is not a person but many different people in different places. Your message and mine will be probably received differently at another time of the day.
There are more places in the world than Europe and USA. I'm in Vietnam and it's 8.30 am. So maybe the opinions you're seeing are from Russia, India, China, Thailand, Indonesia, or Mongolia as well as the USA?
>but I'm part of the crowd that is strongly in favor of this type of regulations.
It boggles my mind that anyone would support having the government tell you, at the point of a gun, what kind of software you are allowed to run on your own computer.
It boggles my mind that anyone would support having the government tell you, at the point of a gun, what kind of software you are allowed to run on your own computer.
Sounds a lot like the "illegal numbers" debacle.
> minimize our privacy.
That’s not a neutral stance. The idea that anything that happens on a computer should be completely free of law, trace or any kind of governmental control is not just a stance of “we want privacy” and in fact most of the pushes are just establishing the exact same level of accountability that you have always had in pre-digital financial systems.
The government has always asked you to truthfully under penalty of law report your income and financial activities. The fact that it was difficult for them to tell if you lied is not a question about rights that’s a question of accountability.
The government has always had financial regulations for banks, financial institutions and securities, the fact that it has been easy for people to ignore those rules is not a question of rights, it’s a question about accountability.
You claim neutrality but the very framing of the discussion you take is an extremist point of view. It’s essentially like saying “The civil war was about states rights and I’m neutral about if they where right”
That’s not a neutral stance. The idea that anything that happens on a computer should be completely free of law, trace or any kind of governmental control is not just a stance of “we want privacy” and in fact most of the pushes are just establishing the exact same level of accountability that you have always had in pre-digital financial systems.
The government has always asked you to truthfully under penalty of law report your income and financial activities. The fact that it was difficult for them to tell if you lied is not a question about rights that’s a question of accountability.
The government has always had financial regulations for banks, financial institutions and securities, the fact that it has been easy for people to ignore those rules is not a question of rights, it’s a question about accountability.
You claim neutrality but the very framing of the discussion you take is an extremist point of view. It’s essentially like saying “The civil war was about states rights and I’m neutral about if they where right”
It's because it's an established technology that only attracts speculation and scams because it detaches the creation of capital from the utilization of labor and production and replaces it with hardware.
It's a fundamentally "wrong" currency in that you cannot request labor in exchange for debt. Instead you can request labor in exchange for waiting for a machine to generate the value of labor.
People say, well that's great, because no one wants debt. Except you do. You do want debt to exist in the world, because you want people to have an incentive to make things and do things versus not making things and doing things.
It makes no sense. It's mass appeal is driven by the fact that one person exchanges fiat to another person in exchange for the currency itself in larger price to fiat over time.
I think it's actually somewhat sustainable nonsense too, because people really think you can dollar cost average it. And if you have it and need to actually buy something with it, you are only incentivized to ask for more fiat in exchange for it, because people will buy it for strange reasons like simple moving average.
It's not a good currency, because it's not price stable, and it's not a good investment, since there's no underlying or relational value associated with it. So what is it?
It's a fundamentally "wrong" currency in that you cannot request labor in exchange for debt. Instead you can request labor in exchange for waiting for a machine to generate the value of labor.
People say, well that's great, because no one wants debt. Except you do. You do want debt to exist in the world, because you want people to have an incentive to make things and do things versus not making things and doing things.
It makes no sense. It's mass appeal is driven by the fact that one person exchanges fiat to another person in exchange for the currency itself in larger price to fiat over time.
I think it's actually somewhat sustainable nonsense too, because people really think you can dollar cost average it. And if you have it and need to actually buy something with it, you are only incentivized to ask for more fiat in exchange for it, because people will buy it for strange reasons like simple moving average.
It's not a good currency, because it's not price stable, and it's not a good investment, since there's no underlying or relational value associated with it. So what is it?
You have bought into the debt argument, and loose money.
I like hard money. Infinity / 21M
I like hard money. Infinity / 21M
Then you don't understand how currencies work today. It's like saying we should go back to the gold standard.
It makes no sense. Labor capacity increases as population grows. Gold does not grow. Should we all exchange slivers of gold? No. That would be nonsensical.
It makes no sense. Labor capacity increases as population grows. Gold does not grow. Should we all exchange slivers of gold? No. That would be nonsensical.
“We should adopt a bitcoin standard”. It will end all wars; bring freedom, peace and prosperity to the planet.
I don’t think we should go back to physical element based scarcity to measure wealth, the asteroids are full of it. What nothing else in the universe is full of is nonces for near hash collisions in SHA256. That’s as good or better than any other way to secure the ledger.
I don’t think we should go back to physical element based scarcity to measure wealth, the asteroids are full of it. What nothing else in the universe is full of is nonces for near hash collisions in SHA256. That’s as good or better than any other way to secure the ledger.
The money supply grew under the gold standard, via debt-based money creation and fractional reserve banking.
The currency shortages and depressions of the gold standard era were due to government intervention in banking, not gold backing of currency: https://www.alt-m.org/2015/06/04/ten-things-every-economist-...
The currency shortages and depressions of the gold standard era were due to government intervention in banking, not gold backing of currency: https://www.alt-m.org/2015/06/04/ten-things-every-economist-...
It seems like this comment appears in every Bitcoin post. I get a deja vu feeling when I read it.
To the OP, is this copy-pasted to every new BTC post? Truly curious.
To the OP, is this copy-pasted to every new BTC post? Truly curious.
No, it's not copypasta. If you consistently hear this from other people, I would reflect on it, then.
I am absolutely of the opinion that we deserve more privacy when it comes to our transactions. We need and deserve a privacy-oriented payment system but we also need a financial system that is reliable, trustworthy, and most of all, fair. That’s not Bitcoin.
I don’t know whether predatory investments and outright scams are simply inevitable with the anonymity cryptocurrency provides. I’d like to think there are some perfectly valid and net-beneficial use cases. But it seems pretty clear that crypto, in its current iteration, is exploitative at best and the only real use case beyond pyramid schemes is facilitating criminal activity.
It was a cool experiment. We tried it. It doesn’t work. A lot of people have learned (and some are still yet to learn) the hard way why our financial systems are so heavily regulated. But if we’re looking for increased privacy (and we should be!) we need to start looking beyond Bitcoin.
I don’t know whether predatory investments and outright scams are simply inevitable with the anonymity cryptocurrency provides. I’d like to think there are some perfectly valid and net-beneficial use cases. But it seems pretty clear that crypto, in its current iteration, is exploitative at best and the only real use case beyond pyramid schemes is facilitating criminal activity.
It was a cool experiment. We tried it. It doesn’t work. A lot of people have learned (and some are still yet to learn) the hard way why our financial systems are so heavily regulated. But if we’re looking for increased privacy (and we should be!) we need to start looking beyond Bitcoin.
This is a really cynical and oversimplified take in my opinion.
Our centralized financial systems have a lot of regulation for outsiders, but the rules selectively apply to those with power and capital. If the Panama Papers/FinCEN leaks have shown me anything its that our financial systems are not sufficiently policing themselves.
Having all transactions on open source ledgers is a good start. With zero knowledge proofs I’m fairly confident we can design auxiliary systems that can obfuscate senders/receivers/amounts while also allowing for fraud detection by the community as a whole - with slashing style incentives we won’t have to worry as much about regulatory capture and similar things.
Our centralized financial systems have a lot of regulation for outsiders, but the rules selectively apply to those with power and capital. If the Panama Papers/FinCEN leaks have shown me anything its that our financial systems are not sufficiently policing themselves.
Having all transactions on open source ledgers is a good start. With zero knowledge proofs I’m fairly confident we can design auxiliary systems that can obfuscate senders/receivers/amounts while also allowing for fraud detection by the community as a whole - with slashing style incentives we won’t have to worry as much about regulatory capture and similar things.
Slashing is a disincentive, and should be a good reason for distrust. I would not trust a public ledger that can delete my funds.
You can’t have fraud detection and privacy. They are mutually exclusive.
You can’t have fraud detection and privacy. They are mutually exclusive.
Bitcoin and the like simply make Panama papers style hidden wealth all the more likely and possible.
What makes you say it doesn’t work?
And, you can’t have privacy and still prevent illicit transactions. Any way that leaks intent is by definition not private.
Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies work fine, and achieve their goals.
And, you can’t have privacy and still prevent illicit transactions. Any way that leaks intent is by definition not private.
Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies work fine, and achieve their goals.
> And, you can’t have privacy and still prevent illicit transactions. Any way that leaks intent is by definition not private.
Sure you can. Cash does. It’s why we don’t have large denominated bills.
Sure you can. Cash does. It’s why we don’t have large denominated bills.
One thing that I find hard to sympathize in terms of Cyperpunk Manifesto is that a lot of it seems to do with perceived oppression of government and is written and supported by those who live in a countries with representative democracy.
The governement should know who you are and the bank you are associated too, if that's required to do business with them. Eg. VISA should be able to return my money to my bank account if someone has a chance to abuse the system and target me.
I don't want companies to share my information to third parties, this includes the banks about my purchases. And eg. Facebook shouldn't be able to target me because a site added their 'like button'.
Privacy doesn't mean lawless land of crypto companies hiding in unknown countries. I actually expect governement regulation to protect it's tax-paying citizens.
That's why we vote for them.
Edit: As a counter argument, there are also a lot of downvotes without reasonable arguments when you argument against crypto ;)
Edit 2: the informed article you shared is actually pretty biased from my POV, definitely not neutral + The additional sanity check when checking the author didn't check out either.
I don't want companies to share my information to third parties, this includes the banks about my purchases. And eg. Facebook shouldn't be able to target me because a site added their 'like button'.
Privacy doesn't mean lawless land of crypto companies hiding in unknown countries. I actually expect governement regulation to protect it's tax-paying citizens.
That's why we vote for them.
Edit: As a counter argument, there are also a lot of downvotes without reasonable arguments when you argument against crypto ;)
Edit 2: the informed article you shared is actually pretty biased from my POV, definitely not neutral + The additional sanity check when checking the author didn't check out either.
The government shouldn't know about any of that.
Not their business.
Not their business.
And that’s the two sides of the coin.
Where does this ‘government doesn’t know any of that’ actually work in practice? America has become a joke, the rich do not pay their share of taxes and face no punishment.
They do not declare what they should be paying taxes on (spirit of the law, not what they can get away with, remember you wanted that honesty policy).
It’s unfortunate that crypto has become a worse state of affairs in terms of greed and inequality, but I think long term it offers the capacity for transparent finance.
I’m pro privacy on a individual basis, but I don’t think financial or corporate privacy has served the world well.
Where does this ‘government doesn’t know any of that’ actually work in practice? America has become a joke, the rich do not pay their share of taxes and face no punishment.
They do not declare what they should be paying taxes on (spirit of the law, not what they can get away with, remember you wanted that honesty policy).
It’s unfortunate that crypto has become a worse state of affairs in terms of greed and inequality, but I think long term it offers the capacity for transparent finance.
I’m pro privacy on a individual basis, but I don’t think financial or corporate privacy has served the world well.
> the rich do not pay their share of taxes and face no punishment.
The government tracks everything we do right now, and the rich still don't pay their share of the taxes or face punishment for it. So why don't we stop the tracking, since the rich aren't paying anyway, and stop pretending that blanket surveillance is somehow beneficial and desirable for the rest of us?
The government tracks everything we do right now, and the rich still don't pay their share of the taxes or face punishment for it. So why don't we stop the tracking, since the rich aren't paying anyway, and stop pretending that blanket surveillance is somehow beneficial and desirable for the rest of us?
That's exactly their business.
What about a simple letter as invitation on how to register for a COVID vaccination center.
Or a sms-alert for a incoming storm.
Or if someone hits you with their car and runs away. Based on the license plate that they can track them down.
Or if you call 911 for an emergency and you can't finish your sentence with the address.
Or if you die, that you children are taken care of and can receive your inheritance. They need to be a neutral party.
Even a simple birth certificate is done by the government.
What about a simple letter as invitation on how to register for a COVID vaccination center.
Or a sms-alert for a incoming storm.
Or if someone hits you with their car and runs away. Based on the license plate that they can track them down.
Or if you call 911 for an emergency and you can't finish your sentence with the address.
Or if you die, that you children are taken care of and can receive your inheritance. They need to be a neutral party.
Even a simple birth certificate is done by the government.
Visa is obsolete. That's the first point most people miss in these cryptocurrency discussions.
Credit cards require you to disclose your secret credentials that allow withdrawals from your account. Cryptocurrency payments do not because they apply math and computer science to the problem.
The banking systems are also mostly obsolete because they are usually on an outdated paradigm without a blockchain. Blockchains are the starting point for cheat-proof ledgers. Most existing financial ledgers are susceptible to manipulation. Some by design.
Credit cards require you to disclose your secret credentials that allow withdrawals from your account. Cryptocurrency payments do not because they apply math and computer science to the problem.
The banking systems are also mostly obsolete because they are usually on an outdated paradigm without a blockchain. Blockchains are the starting point for cheat-proof ledgers. Most existing financial ledgers are susceptible to manipulation. Some by design.
They don't have to though - asymmetric authentication has been a thing for decades.
The issue with current card transactions is the size of the identifier string - 16 digits isn't enough to do anything particularly useful with that can't be near-instantly brute forced.
Chip and pin somewhat improves that, all we need is to completely deprecate the idea of a "16 digit card number" and it opens up a world of possibilities. No "cryptocurrency" or "blockchain" needed.
And for many a "reverse-able" ledger is a bonus not a disadvantage - the "Average Guy On The Street" falls for personal scams or need to do chargebacks waaayyyyy more than fall foul of bank-level fraud.
The issue with current card transactions is the size of the identifier string - 16 digits isn't enough to do anything particularly useful with that can't be near-instantly brute forced.
Chip and pin somewhat improves that, all we need is to completely deprecate the idea of a "16 digit card number" and it opens up a world of possibilities. No "cryptocurrency" or "blockchain" needed.
And for many a "reverse-able" ledger is a bonus not a disadvantage - the "Average Guy On The Street" falls for personal scams or need to do chargebacks waaayyyyy more than fall foul of bank-level fraud.
The reason chargebacks exist is because of the poor technology.
Chargebacks exist because human error and fraud exist. Irrevocable transactions make it easy for people to be left with the choice between taking a loss or having to sue, and a LOT of people prefer to pay slightly more not to have to worry about that.
You do realise that to be useful currency has to interact with the real world at some point?
No amount of cryptocurrency-bro tech is going to help with a DOA washing machine...
No amount of cryptocurrency-bro tech is going to help with a DOA washing machine...
You can use a credit card anywhere even when your phone is in your car/at home or has a dead battery.
That's the case for me indeed. I strongly agree with the arguments against Bitcoin, but i can only sympathize with a p2p protocol being hunted down by governments.
The crypto world is running out of safe havens. China cracked down, and cut the power to large Bitcoin farms. In the US, the SEC and CFTC have been tightening up on crypto-related things that look like securities and things that look like exchanges. Israel kicked out the binary option crowd, which overlapped with the crypto crowd; they seem to have moved to Bulgaria. Now the EU.
The bigger countries are in general tightening up on tax havens; incorporating in the Cayman Islands or Vanatu raises more red flags now.
The Economist has an article this week, "What if Bitcoin went to zero?"[1] Cryptocurrencies haven't hit a recession yet, and we're getting close to one. Look at house prices. In a recession, things which depend on a net inflow of money collapse.
I don't expect Bitcoin to go to zero, but Tether could, easily. When stablecoins crash, they crash all the way.
[1] https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/08/02/w...
The bigger countries are in general tightening up on tax havens; incorporating in the Cayman Islands or Vanatu raises more red flags now.
The Economist has an article this week, "What if Bitcoin went to zero?"[1] Cryptocurrencies haven't hit a recession yet, and we're getting close to one. Look at house prices. In a recession, things which depend on a net inflow of money collapse.
I don't expect Bitcoin to go to zero, but Tether could, easily. When stablecoins crash, they crash all the way.
[1] https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/08/02/w...
> The crypto world is running out of safe havens.
So just to be clear, your definition of "safe haven" is, what, total lawlessness with no governmental oversight?
Frankly, these moves make me think people are taking crypto seriously now, as we're finally treating it like real money or the banking sector and regulating it accordingly. If anything, it seems to me that should be a sign of success, not failure.
(and I should point out I own no crypto and I think blockchains are the biggest technical snake oil grift I've seen in the history of computing)
So just to be clear, your definition of "safe haven" is, what, total lawlessness with no governmental oversight?
Frankly, these moves make me think people are taking crypto seriously now, as we're finally treating it like real money or the banking sector and regulating it accordingly. If anything, it seems to me that should be a sign of success, not failure.
(and I should point out I own no crypto and I think blockchains are the biggest technical snake oil grift I've seen in the history of computing)
But since it provides no advantage over normal currency, except lack of regulation, regulating crypto removes the incentive to onboard on it anyway.
It's slower, it expensive to run, fees are very flexible, value depends only on speculation and electricity spending - it would be a success if crypto trends towards 0 and we can finally try to USE them, but again, it would most likely be suboptimal compared to a banknote.
It's slower, it expensive to run, fees are very flexible, value depends only on speculation and electricity spending - it would be a success if crypto trends towards 0 and we can finally try to USE them, but again, it would most likely be suboptimal compared to a banknote.
Lack of regulation wasn’t ever even the primary advantage. That you don’t have to depend on a single payment handler is what makes crypto interesting.
I've come to realize that the current fiat scheme and the crypto scheme are both unethical in their own way. But it makes me sick to hear people talk about banning crypto without at least suggesting to dramatically reform the fiat system.
Crypto would not have existed in the first place if most people felt that the fiat system was fair.
People who don't acknowledge this at this stage are either totally blind or totally corrupt.
Crypto would not have existed in the first place if most people felt that the fiat system was fair.
People who don't acknowledge this at this stage are either totally blind or totally corrupt.
I was just thinking this. The more control that governments try to exert over their populations the more of a reaction there will be to avoid these controls. One might assume the more they regulate bitcoin that more difficult to regulate alternatives will become more popular.
Makes sense. People will always come up with some new innovative ways to get around regulations which harm them. Those new ways will never cease to defy our imaginations. Who could have imagined Bitcoin 20 years ago? The regulators are playing whack-a-mole.
Problems must be fixed at the root instead of endlessly trying to patch the symptoms. Most software developers are familiar with what happens when you try to fix bugs quickly with hacks instead of first trying to identify the root cause.
Problems must be fixed at the root instead of endlessly trying to patch the symptoms. Most software developers are familiar with what happens when you try to fix bugs quickly with hacks instead of first trying to identify the root cause.
Binary options shouldn't be compared to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency and largely looks like a currency. You can buy it, own it, sell it and exchange it freely for other things. The same is mostly true for proper regulated options.
Binary options are more like a game on a slot machine. You put money in, wait a bit and see if you get money out. You can't own them or transfer them to anybody else. There isn't an open market for them, the counterparty is the broker (i.e. casino). The broker is usually barely regulated if at all, so they can (and do) freely scam people as they please.
Binary options are more like a game on a slot machine. You put money in, wait a bit and see if you get money out. You can't own them or transfer them to anybody else. There isn't an open market for them, the counterparty is the broker (i.e. casino). The broker is usually barely regulated if at all, so they can (and do) freely scam people as they please.
> The crypto world is running out of safe havens. China cracked down, and cut the power to large Bitcoin farms. In the US, the SEC and CFTC have been tightening up on crypto-related things that look like securities and things that look like exchanges. Israel kicked out the binary option crowd, which overlapped with the crypto crowd; they seem to have moved to Bulgaria. Now the EU.
Which further proves the idea that cyberspace is independent of actual space is a lie, which renders any idea predicated on that as suspect.
There may be a brief periods where cyberspace is "more free," but it doesn't take long for the real-space authorities to notice and assert control (often in a way that's more complete than could ever be achieved in real-space).
Which further proves the idea that cyberspace is independent of actual space is a lie, which renders any idea predicated on that as suspect.
There may be a brief periods where cyberspace is "more free," but it doesn't take long for the real-space authorities to notice and assert control (often in a way that's more complete than could ever be achieved in real-space).
Especially since crypto relies on two state monopolies: internet licensed providers and electricity providers.
I can cut a tree and trade it around in piece more easily than I can use the internet state-monitored access to ask someone to use the state-monitored energy grid to print me a bitcoin.
I can cut a tree and trade it around in piece more easily than I can use the internet state-monitored access to ask someone to use the state-monitored energy grid to print me a bitcoin.
Crypto doesn't have to rely on large/detectable draws of electricity, as it can use Proof of Stake instead of Proof of Work.
As for internet access, with encryption, it's very hard if not impossible to discriminate on how people use the internet, so the state will have to either choose to ban people from using encryption, or live with crypto.
As for internet access, with encryption, it's very hard if not impossible to discriminate on how people use the internet, so the state will have to either choose to ban people from using encryption, or live with crypto.
> As for internet access, with encryption, it's very hard if not impossible to discriminate on how people use the internet, so the state will have to either choose to ban people from using encryption, or live with crypto.
No. As long as "crypto" traffic is identifiable in any way, the state can ban it, encrypted or not. It's unnecessary for them to go through the trouble to decrypt it.
For instance:
1. VPN traffic can be fingerprinted, which is one of the methods the GFW uses to block them. I see no reason something similar can't be done for "crypto."
2. People need to get the software to participate in a "crypto" network. A state can target and taken down legitimate channels for getting that software, and backdoored versions can be distributed through replacement channels.
3. A state can setup nodes in a cypto network and then go after anyone in their jurisdiction who connects to them. Whatever "clever" trick you think you can do to avoid connecting to them (sort of only peering with people you personally know) can be easily defeated (e.g. "well I won't connect to any node in my home country" can be easily defeated by a state that rents VPS's in foreign countries).
No. As long as "crypto" traffic is identifiable in any way, the state can ban it, encrypted or not. It's unnecessary for them to go through the trouble to decrypt it.
For instance:
1. VPN traffic can be fingerprinted, which is one of the methods the GFW uses to block them. I see no reason something similar can't be done for "crypto."
2. People need to get the software to participate in a "crypto" network. A state can target and taken down legitimate channels for getting that software, and backdoored versions can be distributed through replacement channels.
3. A state can setup nodes in a cypto network and then go after anyone in their jurisdiction who connects to them. Whatever "clever" trick you think you can do to avoid connecting to them (sort of only peering with people you personally know) can be easily defeated (e.g. "well I won't connect to any node in my home country" can be easily defeated by a state that rents VPS's in foreign countries).
>>As long as "crypto" traffic is identifiable in any way, the state can ban it, encrypted or not.
No, with encryption, it's possible to make crypto traffic completely indistinguishable from all other encrypted traffic.
>>1. VPN traffic can be fingerprinted, which is one of the methods the GFW uses to block them.
The state would indeed need to block both VPNs and TOR to make a dent in crypto traffic. The former would have huge negative economic repercussions. The latter, while not directly impactful on any significant economic sectors, would face major challenges from civil liberties advocates.
>>A state can setup nodes in a cypto network and then go after anyone in their jurisdiction who connects to them.
Crypto nodes that transmit their data through VPNs or TOR cannot be detected like this. In any case, I think it's highly unlikely that the people in any country with a strong democratic tradition would put up with their government doing what you describe. The government is not the master of society. It is the representative of the collective will, and the collective will be very unlikely to support such nakedly authoritarian measures.
No, with encryption, it's possible to make crypto traffic completely indistinguishable from all other encrypted traffic.
>>1. VPN traffic can be fingerprinted, which is one of the methods the GFW uses to block them.
The state would indeed need to block both VPNs and TOR to make a dent in crypto traffic. The former would have huge negative economic repercussions. The latter, while not directly impactful on any significant economic sectors, would face major challenges from civil liberties advocates.
>>A state can setup nodes in a cypto network and then go after anyone in their jurisdiction who connects to them.
Crypto nodes that transmit their data through VPNs or TOR cannot be detected like this. In any case, I think it's highly unlikely that the people in any country with a strong democratic tradition would put up with their government doing what you describe. The government is not the master of society. It is the representative of the collective will, and the collective will be very unlikely to support such nakedly authoritarian measures.
But the aggregate value of crypto is comparable to the US currency in circulation: two trillion.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/cryptocurrency-worth-more-than...
Crypto has a muchlower velocity of trading than currency.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/cryptocurrency-worth-more-than...
Crypto has a muchlower velocity of trading than currency.
Crypto "market cap" is a complete fiction. Only the tiniest fraction of that value actually exists in any form.
As you say, crypto has a much lower velocity of trading than currency. That is the hint.
As you say, crypto has a much lower velocity of trading than currency. That is the hint.
> Cryptocurrencies haven't hit a recession yet, and we're getting close to one.
We've been in a recession since Feb 2020...
We've been in a recession since Feb 2020...
Any currency not backed by a military is doomed to fail the moment anyone with actual power decides they've had enough of it.
Afaik shitcoins aren't even backed by the threat of violence (i.e. "fuck with us and we'll do bad shit").
They only work as long as actual organizations with actual armed forces let them be.
Most people forget how fickle their freedoms are, and overestimate their extent.
Afaik shitcoins aren't even backed by the threat of violence (i.e. "fuck with us and we'll do bad shit").
They only work as long as actual organizations with actual armed forces let them be.
Most people forget how fickle their freedoms are, and overestimate their extent.
By “ban anonymous crypto wallets”, this article is referring to commercial custodians that offer wallet services to customers.
But it doesn’t say anything about whether the ban will apply to FOSS crypto wallets people can download and run on their personal computers.
As long as the latter remains protected by free speech laws, similar to cryptography code, and commercial custodial wallets are affected, then this is a reasonable compromise not a huge problem imho.
But it doesn’t say anything about whether the ban will apply to FOSS crypto wallets people can download and run on their personal computers.
As long as the latter remains protected by free speech laws, similar to cryptography code, and commercial custodial wallets are affected, then this is a reasonable compromise not a huge problem imho.
The EU isn't doing anything to bitcoin. They have no ability to regulate bitcoin. They can make it traceable when it is held on kycd exchanges In their jurisdiction. That is a big difference
They don't need the ability to regulate bitcoin. They can just treat illegal exchanges as money launderers (or terrorism funders, or whatever else the go-to argument is today) and slap them with hefty fines. Anyone using these exchanges is committing a crime and can be treated accordingly.
Anyone caught with large amounts of crypto can be treated as a criminal, the same way people who have large amounts of cash on them are treated. It's obviously harder to spot someone walking around with a hoard of crypto coins, no black briefcase required.
This is just another tool in an already very expansive toolbox. All in the name of "security".
Anyone caught with large amounts of crypto can be treated as a criminal, the same way people who have large amounts of cash on them are treated. It's obviously harder to spot someone walking around with a hoard of crypto coins, no black briefcase required.
This is just another tool in an already very expansive toolbox. All in the name of "security".
There's no need to put scare quotes around security. Cryptocurrencies are mostly used for one of three things.
1. Paying ransomware. 2. Buying drugs. 3. Day-trading.
That's it. There's no meaningful slice of the pie that goes to #4.
Almost all of us can agree that #1 is illegal, many people and countries currently believe that #2 is illegal, and almost all of us can agree that people participating in #3 should probably pay taxes on their gains/get tax credits on their losses.
1. Paying ransomware. 2. Buying drugs. 3. Day-trading.
That's it. There's no meaningful slice of the pie that goes to #4.
Almost all of us can agree that #1 is illegal, many people and countries currently believe that #2 is illegal, and almost all of us can agree that people participating in #3 should probably pay taxes on their gains/get tax credits on their losses.
#4 is, or has been, evading laws in China and other countries with tight currency controls. A wealthy Chinese citizen can't necessarily just transfer money to a foreign bank account. But he can purchase crypto mining hardware and electricity for local currency, then sell the resulting coins for convertible hard currency on foreign exchanges.
That's a fair point, that I forgot about.
#4 is "holding currency independent of any central bank's monetary policy."
Ironically, that's the strongest long term feature. But probably the one driving the least amount of volume (outside of hyperinflation states).
Ironically, that's the strongest long term feature. But probably the one driving the least amount of volume (outside of hyperinflation states).
But the idea of it being a "currency" requires it to have some value outside of it being stored (IE someone wants to buy it).
If the only reason for it existing is to show how many you have, it has zero value outside the possible curiosity of "Having the largest number that happens to match this set of arbitrary mathematical restrictions"
If the only reason for it existing is to show how many you have, it has zero value outside the possible curiosity of "Having the largest number that happens to match this set of arbitrary mathematical restrictions"
Storing value and being freely transferrable is an intrinsic value. That establishes some worth > 0.
What external transaction use does is even out the day to day value changes and decrease volitility (transaction volume >> trading volume).
Without that, you'd see some value placed on it, but a large price moves as trading affects it. Come to think of it, that looks a lot like... hmm.
What external transaction use does is even out the day to day value changes and decrease volitility (transaction volume >> trading volume).
Without that, you'd see some value placed on it, but a large price moves as trading affects it. Come to think of it, that looks a lot like... hmm.
Why do you think this is true? I use crypto weekly here in Switzerland because it's comfortable, fast and has lower fees. I could even pay my taxes in some places. Then there are millions of people with no proper access to banking that highly benefit from crypto. But some people just think it's all about illegal things and trading.
You forgot outright money laundering / tax evasion
They have the same ability to regulate it as they do cash transactions. Which is to say, people will still find workarounds if they really want to take a shot at it, but forget about transacting with legit companies and institutions unless you want the spotlight shone on you.
Adding 1 additional p2p hop to transactions is trivially easy with Bitcoin and readily automatable. With 1 additional hop, you facilitate somebody's purchase of bitcoin and they pay for the services you need in fiat (usually at a discount). Good luck regulating that.
Oh you sweet summer child, tax agencies and financial investigators know the ins and outs about financial triangulations since the dawn of tax fraud. You think they're not going to ask you about it once you're on the spotlight for an audit?
How would anyone know that you are in fact transacting BTC at all (especially if it's anonymized)? The risk seems almost nonexistent unless you are buying really expensive services on a regular basis.
The EU prints Euros. The EU does not in any direct way control production of bitcoin.
Custody of the two assets has bordering on nothing in common.
Exchange of the who assets has bordering on nothing in common.
Conflating them is wildly innacurate.
Custody of the two assets has bordering on nothing in common.
Exchange of the who assets has bordering on nothing in common.
Conflating them is wildly innacurate.
Who's going to exchange euro for crypto, if all European banks are prohibited from touching it?
People can just buy what they want with crypto instead of exchanging it for euro or dollar.
Maybe for virtual items but how would physical items work? The baker has the same issue as you and the flower costs Euros even though the baker might except crypto.
I can figure some complex ways but somewhere, because there are not enough people using crypto, it will get exchanged and there you will be caught. In this scenario you are actually doing something illegal; spending money you did not declare to the gov for KYC/AML, so you can still be traced via the baker who exchanged your payment to euros. And if you used Monero or whatever, you are now an actual criminal trying to hide their tracks.
There would need to be a very large crowd accepting crypto for the crypto sake, not for the USD value to get anywhere here. Which is the dream of all the fans but this is not even close where crypto is currently and most govs are taking steps to prevent it getting there.
I can figure some complex ways but somewhere, because there are not enough people using crypto, it will get exchanged and there you will be caught. In this scenario you are actually doing something illegal; spending money you did not declare to the gov for KYC/AML, so you can still be traced via the baker who exchanged your payment to euros. And if you used Monero or whatever, you are now an actual criminal trying to hide their tracks.
There would need to be a very large crowd accepting crypto for the crypto sake, not for the USD value to get anywhere here. Which is the dream of all the fans but this is not even close where crypto is currently and most govs are taking steps to prevent it getting there.
Gift cards are anonymous bridges between the fiat and crypto world. Anyone can buy a $1000 Amazon gift card or 1000+ other gift cards instantly with no KYC.
Currently, buying gift cards using the lightning network is faster than buying gift cards directly from merchants and there is no way Amazon or any other merchant can win the speed race using the traditional financial network.
Currently, buying gift cards using the lightning network is faster than buying gift cards directly from merchants and there is no way Amazon or any other merchant can win the speed race using the traditional financial network.
What reality are you living in? Gift card purchases are _extremely_ scrutinized for fraud and everyone and their mother is skeptical of large purchases for gift cards precisely because they're an extremely common vehicle for fraud.
There is a massive BTC to gift card market and I've heard zero problems from the regular users of such services. What additional scrutiny have you heard of relating to $100-$1000 gift cards that are purchased legally and traded p2p?
From my understanding p2p exchange is the whole purpose of gift cards, so this activity is indistinguishable from other mainstream uses.
https://www.bitrefill.com/buy/usa/
From my understanding p2p exchange is the whole purpose of gift cards, so this activity is indistinguishable from other mainstream uses.
https://www.bitrefill.com/buy/usa/
Any government can't regulate Bitcoin per se, but they can always regulate the intersection of their currency and Bitcoin. If they require banks to observe a whitelist of acceptable exchanges when honoring transfer requests, the banks will happily comply.
They can't regulate bitcoin but they sure can discourage investors from putting in billions into Bitcoin. Considering that the growth story is based around those future investors it would be pretty bad news for Bitcoin if that flow of investors suddenly stopped.
Serious question: Couldn't they ban ISPs from connecting to known networks? A public blockchain must remain public and they can largely prevent that. They could (not saying they will) ban VPN connections to other countries.
You don't need to connect to a blockchain to make a transaction. You just need to connect to someone who is connected to a blockchain. Big difference.
Blockchain isn't where the concern is. It's where the exchanges interact with the banking system.
I understand anti-EU sentiment, but who uses bitcoin for something different than transfering illegal funds and speculation?
I understand Ethereum and other smart contract cryptocurcies, but time when people believed Bitcoin is going to become currency are long gone
I understand Ethereum and other smart contract cryptocurcies, but time when people believed Bitcoin is going to become currency are long gone
> but who uses bitcoin for something different than transfering illegal funds and speculation?
A lot of people. You just have to NOT live in a country that uses a currency that could be considered a global reserve to find us.
A lot of people. You just have to NOT live in a country that uses a currency that could be considered a global reserve to find us.
could you elaborate? I'm ignorant. From my perspective it seems like the value of bitcoin changes too much, having risen sharply in value recently, to spend as currency, but I'm also assuming that there are other more stable options. What kind of things do you buy, and how often? What sort of things do you do considering that the value might sky-rocket or dive overnight?
To add to what xtracto said, I live in Argentina and our currency has an annual inflation rate of 50% (it's actually higher, but I'll stick to official numbers).
Banks here have a bad history of keeping your foreign currency deposits when things go south and then converting your balance at a government mandated exchange rate, which was a fraction of the real value (think 1/10 of the real value).
Now, the government can always make cryptos illegal, but news like OP show that globally we moving towards regulation instead of prohibition, so for now cryptos are were we can still take refuge.
So here you can either keep your savings in a currency that evaporates, buy real state at insanely high price because that's where big money is stored, illegaly purchase foreign currency and physically hide it somewhere like a criminal, our you can legally purchase crypto and keep it safe outside the reaches of our governments and banks.
Banks here have a bad history of keeping your foreign currency deposits when things go south and then converting your balance at a government mandated exchange rate, which was a fraction of the real value (think 1/10 of the real value).
Now, the government can always make cryptos illegal, but news like OP show that globally we moving towards regulation instead of prohibition, so for now cryptos are were we can still take refuge.
So here you can either keep your savings in a currency that evaporates, buy real state at insanely high price because that's where big money is stored, illegaly purchase foreign currency and physically hide it somewhere like a criminal, our you can legally purchase crypto and keep it safe outside the reaches of our governments and banks.
do you use crypto for daily purchases, like going to a corner store or buying groceries, or is it more informal and a way to transfer money between friends? Or is it a store of value and you liquidate some periodically for purchases? Also thank you for educating me, this makes much more sense than anything from my perspective.
Not op. But I do buy groceries with crypto. Amazon is kinda irrelevant around here (Switzerland) and the biggest local competitor accepts crypto for several years now. Some places even accept it for taxes.
I rarely used to for P2P transfers, but I find crypto super useful for online shopping.
I rarely used to for P2P transfers, but I find crypto super useful for online shopping.
Why can't you just invest in an index fund or a money market fund?
it's literally easier to move your money overseas to an international broker than to try to operate here, which is what people with enough money do.
we tried to invest some backup cash we had in a company here a couple a years ago and it was a nightmare. the only way to operate was through phone calls.
EDIT: I read a bit to the check the current state of affairs and it's still complicated, and apparently there is a currency conversion process that is hit by a very heavy fee. Something similar happens with credit cards, when we pay for a service or product in a foreign currency we get charged a 65% tax that puts the official USD exchange rate in line with the real one.
we tried to invest some backup cash we had in a company here a couple a years ago and it was a nightmare. the only way to operate was through phone calls.
EDIT: I read a bit to the check the current state of affairs and it's still complicated, and apparently there is a currency conversion process that is hit by a very heavy fee. Something similar happens with credit cards, when we pay for a service or product in a foreign currency we get charged a 65% tax that puts the official USD exchange rate in line with the real one.
> I'm ignorant. From my perspective it seems like the value of bitcoin changes too much,
The value of Bitcoin fluctuates UP and DOWN too much *when compared to the US Dollar*.
But compared say, to the Mexican Peso or say (more extremely) Venezuelan Peso, it has gone steadily up. So for us who don't live in a place with a sufficiently stable central bank and a trustful government, Cryptocurrencies are one avenue to safeguard the value of our income.
The value of Bitcoin fluctuates UP and DOWN too much *when compared to the US Dollar*.
But compared say, to the Mexican Peso or say (more extremely) Venezuelan Peso, it has gone steadily up. So for us who don't live in a place with a sufficiently stable central bank and a trustful government, Cryptocurrencies are one avenue to safeguard the value of our income.
If what you are saying is true, then there is a huge arbitrage opportunity there, unless there are sufficient transaction costs or legal deterrents involved.
If the value of bitcoin relative to MXN is steadily going up (meaning that MXN is losing value relative to USD), then it automatically mean that the value of MXN is also steadily losing value relative to USD. So at the end, from a "value" point of view, nothing will change for you because both currencies are "pegged" to USD. If parity doesn't hold, there is an arbitrage opportunity there; suppose
1 USD = 2 BTC 1 USD = 4 MXN
The implied exchange rate MXNUSD would be BTC = 2 MXN. But imagine as you say that for some reason, this doesn't hold, and actually 1 BTC = 5 MXN in Mexico. I have then an incentive to buy 1 BTC at 0.5 USD, use that 1 BTC to buy 5 MXN, and sell all that MXN at the original rate of 0.25 USD, earning 1.25 USD.
I can understand that it may be easier to physically hold BTC as opposed to fiat USD in that situation, but I don't get the value store proposition. Anyone saying that they see Bitcoin as a store value, are implying they believe that in the future, some people will want to pay for 1 Bitcoin the same amount (or higher than) it's currently worth. It's a perfectly valid claim to make, but what is this belief based on?
If the value of bitcoin relative to MXN is steadily going up (meaning that MXN is losing value relative to USD), then it automatically mean that the value of MXN is also steadily losing value relative to USD. So at the end, from a "value" point of view, nothing will change for you because both currencies are "pegged" to USD. If parity doesn't hold, there is an arbitrage opportunity there; suppose
1 USD = 2 BTC 1 USD = 4 MXN
The implied exchange rate MXNUSD would be BTC = 2 MXN. But imagine as you say that for some reason, this doesn't hold, and actually 1 BTC = 5 MXN in Mexico. I have then an incentive to buy 1 BTC at 0.5 USD, use that 1 BTC to buy 5 MXN, and sell all that MXN at the original rate of 0.25 USD, earning 1.25 USD.
I can understand that it may be easier to physically hold BTC as opposed to fiat USD in that situation, but I don't get the value store proposition. Anyone saying that they see Bitcoin as a store value, are implying they believe that in the future, some people will want to pay for 1 Bitcoin the same amount (or higher than) it's currently worth. It's a perfectly valid claim to make, but what is this belief based on?
The value of MXN is going down relative to BTC and to USD at the same time. There is no arbitrage opportunity, beyond the obvious slow drip of money moving between the two and maintaining this balance.
You know, this is one of those things that would go away with the snap of a finger if the leaders cared about their country. Okay it's harder than that because the IMF is completely backwards but let's assume that the Venezuelan government was willing to listen and the IMF actually understood economics. It wouldn't take a year to fix the problem. Shortages may last longer because the real world is slow.
Shame on me... "Venezuelan Peso" is Bolivar. That was pretty ignorant haha.
If you are in the HN news bubble then you will not have a rounded view on the use of crypto. It has bad and good aspects.
El Salvador is trying to use it a currency. Well, I still wouldn't consider it a currency since pretty much everything will be priced in dollars, but they are using to transfer value. One of the man reasons for this was to send home remittances.
Many people still believe Bitcoin could at least be used to transfer value, like a currency. AMC, Starbucks, and United Wholesale Mortgage are all looking into accepting it. Whether these come to be seems to be seen, but there is obviously a lot of people that still expect Bitcoin to be a currency, or at the very least a way to transfer value.
Many people still believe Bitcoin could at least be used to transfer value, like a currency. AMC, Starbucks, and United Wholesale Mortgage are all looking into accepting it. Whether these come to be seems to be seen, but there is obviously a lot of people that still expect Bitcoin to be a currency, or at the very least a way to transfer value.
Bitcoin is generally considered a 'store of value' rather then a day to day 'currency'...
Sorta like a savings bond vs a credit card
And a few years back, before the transaction fees got so high - there were a few places that took it. NewEgg comes to mind.
Sorta like a savings bond vs a credit card
And a few years back, before the transaction fees got so high - there were a few places that took it. NewEgg comes to mind.
More accurately, after years of failing to be viable as a currency the salespeople started claiming the goal had never been replacing cash and instead was some sort of poorly defined “store of value” instead of what they’d spent the previous decade spinning stories about.
Since a real reserve currency is stable and backed by consistent demand, it’s unclear why anyone expects a pure fiat currency backed only by a small community of speculators to be successful.
Since a real reserve currency is stable and backed by consistent demand, it’s unclear why anyone expects a pure fiat currency backed only by a small community of speculators to be successful.
Well, not really. BTC was sort of usable as a currency to a point. You could even buy games on Steam with it.
But it had a 1MB block size limit, which was initially implemented to prevent spam. This was obstinately kept in place, and that quickly destroyed its usefulness as a currency -- since now there's a lot of contention, transacting is slow and expensive. This doesn't bother the people who want an asset to buy once, but makes it useless as a currency.
But it had a 1MB block size limit, which was initially implemented to prevent spam. This was obstinately kept in place, and that quickly destroyed its usefulness as a currency -- since now there's a lot of contention, transacting is slow and expensive. This doesn't bother the people who want an asset to buy once, but makes it useless as a currency.
It was technically possible but nobody seriously did it because the transactions were very slow and fees were massive compared to everything else, not to mention that the deflationary design meant that anyone who did would be mocked for not having held on until the value went up. Remember all of those comments about people buying a pizza with what a few years later would have been thousands of dollars? That sealed its fate as a currency because anyone who has an alternative will be better off using it as long as speculators are pouring money in.
I was using bitcoin as a currency where I could in 2015. 'Seriously'. There were lots of restaurants, businesses, and even people who would accept it for payment, and transaction fees were completely reasonable. There is a lot of corruption and perverse incentives in Bitcoin governance, and I don't use it or hold it at all anymore, so I don't know how feasible it is to actually use as a currency now, other than that the fees are out of control, but I think it's unfair to say 'nobody seriously did it'.
I think most of the people still tied to proof-of-work crypto despite the massive environmental concerns which have become obvious more recently, have switched to a variety of other platforms, bitcoin cash being the closest one to bitcoin (but without the block-size constrained, allowing basically fee-less transactions, though you still have to wait for confirmations)
For full disclosure, I don't hold or use any proof-of-work crypto now (other than perhaps Nano, which is sort of a hybrid that has very small proof-of-work performed by the user making the transaction, and proof-of-stake at the validation/confirmation layer)
I think most of the people still tied to proof-of-work crypto despite the massive environmental concerns which have become obvious more recently, have switched to a variety of other platforms, bitcoin cash being the closest one to bitcoin (but without the block-size constrained, allowing basically fee-less transactions, though you still have to wait for confirmations)
For full disclosure, I don't hold or use any proof-of-work crypto now (other than perhaps Nano, which is sort of a hybrid that has very small proof-of-work performed by the user making the transaction, and proof-of-stake at the validation/confirmation layer)
I was using “seriously” in the sense of enough volume to be inconvenienced if the system disappeared. There were a handful of businesses around here accepting Bitcoin but it was a small fraction of their sales and I believe most of them said they were converting it to USD immediately.
I heard about this from a few people I knew who tried it but stopped because it was slow and they felt it was more profitable to hold Bitcoin. I’d be quite happy to have Visa/MasterCard see more competition but this didn’t seem like it was ever going to reach that point.
I heard about this from a few people I knew who tried it but stopped because it was slow and they felt it was more profitable to hold Bitcoin. I’d be quite happy to have Visa/MasterCard see more competition but this didn’t seem like it was ever going to reach that point.
>>the transactions were very slow and fees were massive compared to everything else
I gotta admit, this is my biggest issue with crypto. So far, it's just too slow/expensive to be attractive to me as a day to day tool.
I gotta admit, this is my biggest issue with crypto. So far, it's just too slow/expensive to be attractive to me as a day to day tool.
*Bitcoin.
Transactions on Fantom for example take couple seconds and cost less than a USD cent. Similarly Nano, AVAX, Cardano and many others.
Cryptocurrencies are area of hot research and it innovates fast. Bitcoin was just first (and least capable).
Cryptocurrencies are area of hot research and it innovates fast. Bitcoin was just first (and least capable).
>>*Bitcoin. Transactions on Fantom for example take couple seconds and cost less than a USD cent. Similarly Nano, AVAX, Cardano and many others.
Can't reply to your comment for some reason..
I been in Cardano/ADA for years now, and it generally takes about an hour to get the required confirms for moving between exchanges.
Not familiar with Nano, and AVAX...
Can't reply to your comment for some reason..
I been in Cardano/ADA for years now, and it generally takes about an hour to get the required confirms for moving between exchanges.
Not familiar with Nano, and AVAX...
Cardano transactions shouldn't take more than a few minutes at most. If you're waiting about an hour, it's because the exchange has a wait period.
Fees were tiny before it hit the block limit. If you look at the stats before the blocks started filling up, the average fee was around 5 cents USD. Massive fees only started once the blocks started filling up.
And yup, the deflationary model certainly favors not using it as a currency.
And yup, the deflationary model certainly favors not using it as a currency.
Some people relying on 2017 price peak news headlines haven't gotten the memo that fees only spiked temporarily.
Fees are currently 5-10 cents to get in the next btc block and most lightning network transactions complete in 1-2 seconds and cost 1 cent or less in fees.
Fees are currently 5-10 cents to get in the next btc block and most lightning network transactions complete in 1-2 seconds and cost 1 cent or less in fees.
The speculators want to make money and they don't care how they get that money so they imagine something stupid like a major country adopting it as a reserve currency.
Using El Salvador as an example would be funny because they use Bitcoin as a life raft for remittances, not because the currency is a good fit for day to day transactions.
Using El Salvador as an example would be funny because they use Bitcoin as a life raft for remittances, not because the currency is a good fit for day to day transactions.
All the problems bitcoin solves are worth solving. Do you have a solution to help people paying 20-50% fees for remittances?
Many here are comfortably banked and can't seem to put themselves in less privileged people's shoes.
Many here are comfortably banked and can't seem to put themselves in less privileged people's shoes.
BTC is not like a bond at all. A bond is a collection of future cash flows (coupon payments) and a principle payment at the end (or for savings bonds/t-bills, you are buying one future payment for a discount).
BTC has no intrinsic value or cash flows or earnings or assets or..
BTC has no intrinsic value or cash flows or earnings or assets or..
simple analogy was simple..
Would you prefer comparing it to gold ? Art ? collecting sneakers ? or Comic books ? how about buying land ?
Edit: I should probably clarify..People buy/collect lots of things in the _HOPE_ they'll increase in value. BTC and crypto in general is not unique in that regard.
Would you prefer comparing it to gold ? Art ? collecting sneakers ? or Comic books ? how about buying land ?
Edit: I should probably clarify..People buy/collect lots of things in the _HOPE_ they'll increase in value. BTC and crypto in general is not unique in that regard.
Gold, art, sneakers, comics— yes, those are comparable to BTC. Land is not, as land investments are usually based on future cash flows, which BTC doesnt have.
It's marketed as a store of value. The fact is value can't be stored reliably anywhere. And storing it in a purely imaginary asset, of all things, seems about the dumbest idea.
No different then 'collecting' funko pops, spoons, sneakers, comic books, and a host of other things and hoping they increase in value.
It's different in at least two ways: physical objects provide utility in some way (you can read the book, wear the sneakers...) which means the demand isn't entirely speculative, and they also have a scrap value.
except people routinely pay more then their 'utility' value..so its just as easy to lose money. Not sure what the 'utility' of funco pops are, or the scrap value (same with stamps IIRC - many of them aren't even valid for postage). Stocks typically have no 'scrap' value as well - if a company goes out of biz, the stock is worthless, and these days you generally don't even have the paper certificates to sell for scrap.
Also, the 'value' of art, books, and collectables is rather subjective and fairly volatile. TBH, they seem pretty comparable to cryptos to me. You collect them for fun, hoping the value goes up.
Also, the 'value' of art, books, and collectables is rather subjective and fairly volatile. TBH, they seem pretty comparable to cryptos to me. You collect them for fun, hoping the value goes up.
If they routinely pay more than their utility value, it's a good indication that the asset is in a bubble, and therefore not a good investment in the long term. Most assets are not in a bubble. In fact, they can't all be in a bubble. If some assets are overpriced, then other assets must be underpriced.
Stocks don't have scrap value because they're a financial derivative, whereas we were talking specifically about physical assets. A stock is a claim on a company's equity, and the company equity is defined as assets minus liabilities. Obviously if assets < liabilities, then equity is negative, but that doesn't contradict the assertion that physical objects have scrap value, which was my claim.
Bitcoin is not a derivative, because it has no underlying. It's not a commodity either, because it doesn't exist. It's an imaginary asset, like fiat money. But unlike fiat, Bitcoin doesn't work as money, so it really has no use-case other than be used as a speculative asset. It's a bubble asset.
Stocks don't have scrap value because they're a financial derivative, whereas we were talking specifically about physical assets. A stock is a claim on a company's equity, and the company equity is defined as assets minus liabilities. Obviously if assets < liabilities, then equity is negative, but that doesn't contradict the assertion that physical objects have scrap value, which was my claim.
Bitcoin is not a derivative, because it has no underlying. It's not a commodity either, because it doesn't exist. It's an imaginary asset, like fiat money. But unlike fiat, Bitcoin doesn't work as money, so it really has no use-case other than be used as a speculative asset. It's a bubble asset.
My understanding is that they are trying to use the Lightning Network. Though my brief googling of this only shows speculation that this is the case, rather than confirmation.
Yes, Bitcoin promoters are fully aware that the Bitcoin blockchain is unsuitable for any practical purpose, so they started working on a replacement, the so-called Lightning Network, but it turns the LN is even less likely to work than the Bitcoin blockchain. See this video for some if its fatal design flaws https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOZaLbUUZUs
Lightning Network is an abomination. The company behind it, Blockstream, actively suppressed the movement to increase the block size, which led to the bitcoin cash fork.
[deleted]
When governments stop taking monetary policy seriously and inflation starts to meaningfully destroy savings, you can understand why alternatives gain some traction.
This is the correct answer. Bitcoin is the hardest money ever invented, at least while SHA256 stays secure. History has shown us that people move their savings from softer to harder stores of value as they become available, eventually making softer forms worthless as a currency (seashells, stones, silver, etc.). Currently we see gold as the hardest form of money but Bitcoin has zero supply elasticity which ensures an increasing stock to flow ratio over time, making it harder. Bitcoin is also in most, arguably all, respects better than gold as a store of value, and will, if it isn't replaced by something better or if a flaw isn't discovered that destroys its advantages over gold, make gold worthless as a store of value in the long run.
> who uses bitcoin for something different than transfering illegal funds and speculation?
A couple of months ago, a combination of Covid-related travel restrictions and new EU KYC regulation lead me into a situation where the only way to renew my VPN in a timely manner was through crypto. I was really lucky to have some.
A couple of months ago, a combination of Covid-related travel restrictions and new EU KYC regulation lead me into a situation where the only way to renew my VPN in a timely manner was through crypto. I was really lucky to have some.
I've used eth twice for motorcycle purchases from private sellers.
Perhaps it's useful in for medium-large purchases.
Perhaps it's useful in for medium-large purchases.
Does it have a particular advantage over something like Venmo or Zelle? At least in the US?
I think Venmo has a limit on how much you can transfer in a day
That is a good point. It looks like they have a $4999.99 limit in any seven day period [0]. That is also the single-transaction limit (though there are some variations if you are doing transactions with a merchant and not another private individual). Zelle has higher limits (over seven days, at least), but more of them. $3500 in a day, $10000 in a seven day period, or $20000 in a 30 day period [1].
So for certain high-dollar cash-equivalent transactions, these might not be the best choice. Though personally I think I'd probably end up using something more formal if I were transferring that kind of cash in a single private party transaction.
[0] https://help.venmo.com/hc/en-us/articles/221010968
[1] https://www.bankofamerica.com/online-banking/zelle-transfer-...
So for certain high-dollar cash-equivalent transactions, these might not be the best choice. Though personally I think I'd probably end up using something more formal if I were transferring that kind of cash in a single private party transaction.
[0] https://help.venmo.com/hc/en-us/articles/221010968
[1] https://www.bankofamerica.com/online-banking/zelle-transfer-...
That was the reason, both cases the bikes were $7&9k and I had some surplus crypto :).
Both sellers were happy accepting crypto. Otherwise, I stick to the traditional cash-in-hand.
Both sellers were happy accepting crypto. Otherwise, I stick to the traditional cash-in-hand.
a couple of stories from Palestine and Cuba (I'd say both of these classes fall mostly under the category of where remittances and other cashflows deliberately exclude some communities)
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/can-bitcoin-bring-palest...
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/cubas-bitcoin-revolution
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/can-bitcoin-bring-palest...
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/cubas-bitcoin-revolution
Bitcoin miners use Bitcoin to pay their bills.
Does this not defeat the whole purpose of cryptocurrency? The fact that a government can control its transparency, anonymity, the “currency” is now just a digital object, like any other in a bartering system. I don’t like that a government can trace and identify payment. Perhaps that is nihilistic but it speaks for me to the heart of freedom.
Was the ability to move money easily between the government-owned systems and cryptocurrency ever a purpose, or did it just evolve organically?
Yeah, perhaps instead of working around it, people should work to change the existing systems.
Otherwise you're always going to be stuck completely underground and treated like a criminal/third rate citizen.
Otherwise you're always going to be stuck completely underground and treated like a criminal/third rate citizen.
If you dont want it to be transparent, you use Monero. Its now even getting atomic swaps with Bitcoin.
The entire point is accountability, that seems to be what many people have forgotten. Also, you still have to use the state to enforce property disputes, so cryptocurrency will never buck the traditional system, it simply cant.
Pure wapor. How will they ban anonymous wallets?
Look, where I live weed was decriminalized relatively recently. I could still get weed before, but I couldn't rock up some where and get a CBD soda, or a vape cartridge, or nice edibles, or a variety of products. In the same way you say "how will they ban anonymous wallets" you might say "how do you criminalize a plant", and thats by making possession illegal and following up on that by targeting people/places they expect to find said things. They don't have to make it physically impossible, they just need to introduce enough friction into the process that for most people it stops being worthwhile.
[deleted]
Looks like a ton of bureaucracy with little or no output. I agree, might be the same thing as a war against the drugs lmfao.
They love bureaucracy, they pay themselves for it.
well, it had a lot of output! it completely stifled a whole industry of economic activity, for one. thats sort of my point, you might not be able to make a completely 100% unbeatable ban, but you really don't need to in order to effectively stifle certain kinds of activity. like, the harder you make something to do, the fewer people are going to have the energy to do it. arguments like "why bother, you cant make it literally impossible" miss the point that you can make it difficult enough that for most people it may as well be impossible.
The War on Drugs was a matter of method and intensity; the aim was to completely and swiftly eradicate drug abuse rather than move societal incentives.
This could go either way, as far as I know both are possible
This could go either way, as far as I know both are possible
wasn't it to discredit political rivals and minorities? like, there really wasn't ever a strong argument against weed (that relied on that stated aim), especially in a post-prohibition America.
Yeah, that never stopped them before. Taxpayers are a magical thing.
Unless you only ever transact in crypto, at some point you need an on-ramp or off-ramp from/to the traditional banking system, and at that point regulation is pretty straight forward. My read of it is that they're going to ban anonymous accounts on platforms that provide those services.
"Every retailer, bank or money transmitter that receives a cryptocurrency must show the origin and past transactions of the funds."
I think maybe they mean anonymous _hosted_ wallets where the hoster is inside the EU.
By putting pressure on the banking system. No transfers to or from exchanges that don't play by their rules.
Typically, by preventing regulated institutions to accept deposits from and withdrawals to addresses that do not match a wallet that has been associated with an identified entity. That would be unfortunate.
by making it a crime to have one or accept money from one? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯....
This will thrive business to Switzerland and other crypto save heavens. Nice one EU
Good luck making it a crime to install program.
It is quite easy to criminalize distribution and possession of digital assets.
Also no one care if you bounce bitcoins between your own wallets, any governments just needs to regulate at the border: retail shops that accept crypto and exchanges of crypto/fiat are very easy to identify and regulate.
Also no one care if you bounce bitcoins between your own wallets, any governments just needs to regulate at the border: retail shops that accept crypto and exchanges of crypto/fiat are very easy to identify and regulate.
> Good luck making it a crime to install program.
It is already a crime to passively posses certain combinations of bits (i.e. that directly or indirectly [zip, truecrypt] represent a child porn image).
It has been made illegal to possess the implementation of a mathematical function (i.e. Kerberos being a "Auxiliary Military Equipment"). It will be pretty trivial for the government to make it ilegal to download, posses or install a program (e.g that interacts in some way with the Bitcoin network).
It is already a crime to passively posses certain combinations of bits (i.e. that directly or indirectly [zip, truecrypt] represent a child porn image).
It has been made illegal to possess the implementation of a mathematical function (i.e. Kerberos being a "Auxiliary Military Equipment"). It will be pretty trivial for the government to make it ilegal to download, posses or install a program (e.g that interacts in some way with the Bitcoin network).
It's the same thing as if EU jumped to ban our classic, leather, pocket wallets. Pure bullshit, except if this is marketing?
Limit monthly cash withdrawals to 100 EUR
Limit cash currency exchange to 100 EUR (or just outlaw it)
Wait for some time
Retract cash being mandatory debt settling tender
Wait a little more
And then pompously declare, that only criminals need cash (not far from truth, anybody but criminals and hardcore privacy people will be driven away by then) and ban it completely.
Limit cash currency exchange to 100 EUR (or just outlaw it)
Wait for some time
Retract cash being mandatory debt settling tender
Wait a little more
And then pompously declare, that only criminals need cash (not far from truth, anybody but criminals and hardcore privacy people will be driven away by then) and ban it completely.
If your leather wallet has more than $10,000 in it, there are restrictions today on what you can do with it anonymously.
What about the EU banning ivory wallets?
Old news... also the people announcing it are actually idiots or misinformed on terminology because they aren't talking about local wallets on your computer. By "anonymous crypto wallets" they are talking about anonymous wallets on exchanges, which is very different than most people would think at first glance. This is not "send in the public key of every wallet you've ever touched to the tax service."
Next step: Forbid exchanges from exchanging with non-compliant wallets.
Previous discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27897314
This was news back on July 20th. What has changed?
Everybody who ever thought that crypto currencies will not come under this scrutiny was highly delusional.
All other governments will follow soon.
All other governments will follow soon.
Governments can either get onboard, and come up with a reasonable, practical regulatory environment, or alternatively they will be left behind and Crypto will evolve to circumvent their wishes.
It is a shame but the USA may end up leapfrogging the EU in the same way they have done with other innovations, like Social Media, Self Driving Cars, and other cutting edge tech. It turns out regulating entire sectors of the economy out of existence has consequences.
It is a shame but the USA may end up leapfrogging the EU in the same way they have done with other innovations, like Social Media, Self Driving Cars, and other cutting edge tech. It turns out regulating entire sectors of the economy out of existence has consequences.
Cutting edge? The only special thing about Bitcoin is the blockchain which only matters when there is a shortage of trust. Bitcoin may force government to be more responsible because it can be used to circumvent capital controls or price controls. Any advantage other than trust that a public blockchain has can be replicated through a private blockchain. It's just software after all.
Considering the monetary philosophy behind Bitcoin it is basically motivated by gold which is something we abandoned as a currency because we know it doesn't work and doesn't make sense. It's akin to having shares in the global economy. If you own 1% of the economy in 1930 then you will also own 1% of the economy in 2021. You're just a deadweight leeching off the economy. Since your share is fixed but the economy growing you are getting richer at the expense of other people. More and more people start investing "into money" and then quit working. You get a bust or recession or depression when people consider money a superior investment over actual work. Thus the economies' size is limited by the quantity of shares. If you issue new shares people will immediately start working for them even if it is at the cost of diluting them. You can clearly see it happening with the block reward. Bitcoin miners work like crazy, consuming an absurd amount of energy. The same applies to gold.
Considering the monetary philosophy behind Bitcoin it is basically motivated by gold which is something we abandoned as a currency because we know it doesn't work and doesn't make sense. It's akin to having shares in the global economy. If you own 1% of the economy in 1930 then you will also own 1% of the economy in 2021. You're just a deadweight leeching off the economy. Since your share is fixed but the economy growing you are getting richer at the expense of other people. More and more people start investing "into money" and then quit working. You get a bust or recession or depression when people consider money a superior investment over actual work. Thus the economies' size is limited by the quantity of shares. If you issue new shares people will immediately start working for them even if it is at the cost of diluting them. You can clearly see it happening with the block reward. Bitcoin miners work like crazy, consuming an absurd amount of energy. The same applies to gold.
Considering that trust in government is at an all time low public blockchains provide some much needed openness.
The reason we went off the gold standard is because the US government printed off more money than they had gold and then got caught.
Instead of trying to make up for their crime the government decided to ban ownership of gold.
Cryptocurrency doesn't have a deflationary restriction. If bitcoin is too similar to gold, people will just use some other coin.
The reason we went off the gold standard is because the US government printed off more money than they had gold and then got caught.
Instead of trying to make up for their crime the government decided to ban ownership of gold.
Cryptocurrency doesn't have a deflationary restriction. If bitcoin is too similar to gold, people will just use some other coin.
The inflationary coin was tried more than once. I remember one that wasn't content with infinitely expanding the monetary base - it would delete balances at random, watching people try to defend the idea was hilarious.
Good comparison.
What if Bitcoin continues as it is, which is a way to preserve a part of wealth in a semi-liquid way. Once it hits an equilibrium point, it doesn't go any higher due to the limit in it's liquidity.
What if Bitcoin continues as it is, which is a way to preserve a part of wealth in a semi-liquid way. Once it hits an equilibrium point, it doesn't go any higher due to the limit in it's liquidity.
And then what? Crypto will magically take over all government functions? Or will people be happy in a governmentless-society? Where hospitals and roads don't get built but at least there's "freedom"?
Maybe we should develop less taxes, try to charge everyone with fixed amount for gov services or move some expensive services to private ownership?
Private hospitals based on private insurances will surely build themselves, I promise you that, that's a too highly profitable sector of economy not to invest if there is no competition from the government.
There are like zero real reasons why person with 100k EUR income should pay more than 10k EUR income person living in the same city and consuming the same amount of public services. Current system is completely unjust and based on money redistribution (that's called robbery if that's is done by a mob without the gov id card).
Free capital controls provided by crypto (i.e. ability to flawlessly move billions through the border without anyone's allowance) introduces unprecedented competition between govs for educated and rich citizens, which may lead to lower taxes, less regulations, more freedoms and less bureaucracy. That a good goal and incentive, don't you think?
Private hospitals based on private insurances will surely build themselves, I promise you that, that's a too highly profitable sector of economy not to invest if there is no competition from the government.
There are like zero real reasons why person with 100k EUR income should pay more than 10k EUR income person living in the same city and consuming the same amount of public services. Current system is completely unjust and based on money redistribution (that's called robbery if that's is done by a mob without the gov id card).
Free capital controls provided by crypto (i.e. ability to flawlessly move billions through the border without anyone's allowance) introduces unprecedented competition between govs for educated and rich citizens, which may lead to lower taxes, less regulations, more freedoms and less bureaucracy. That a good goal and incentive, don't you think?
Governments have no interest in being "ahead" in enabling fraud, crime and tax evasion.
You have a lot of trust in people. There are plenty of politicians with financial crime convictions and organised crime ties.
Sure, but even looking at the most corrupt, they have little incentive to enable fraud, crime, and tax evasion by people they're not already in mutually beneficial arrangements with, and none to enable it for people who won't give them a cut.
Do you want to give them a cut?
Do you want to give them a cut?
Cough… wirecard… cough.
Yup. A technology which is mainly used for money laundering, dark-net markets, ransoms, and speculation will certainly attract the attention of government.
Are you assuming that somebody thought that? Or did somebody share that opinion with you? I don't mean some anonymous person you argued with, I'm talking about a real person. Because I was involved back in the single digit days - and I never encountered that kind of sentiment. Things have actually played out as expected: governments stalling for time in a weird prisoner's dilemma by sowing as much uncertainty possible without hamstringing their economies for the next century.
I am not assuming. People have shared that sentiment with me at the beginning of the crypto craze.
The beginning, like when people were commonly introduced to the concept through the whitepaper and a link to the reference client source? And those people thought "public ledger" meant "governments can’t track how I spend my money"? A short time after the USG shuttered a non-fractional, gold reserve backed, paypal-like financial network? Okey dokey.
Well, a little bit later. Usually those were the people getting on bandwagon based on the wrong premise. "Independent from a centrally controlled bank system", "the government cannot track me", "the government cannot take my crypto away" (so they technically cannot but they can definitely block moving it so that it essentially becomes worthless), you name it.
In the hindsight, the central control over crypto may give it a credibility boost. It doesn't really solve the problems of how easy is it to get scammed / lose it but it may swing the usage majority towards legit markets.
I have no idea, really. My initial statement in this thread was an emotion driven one.
In the hindsight, the central control over crypto may give it a credibility boost. It doesn't really solve the problems of how easy is it to get scammed / lose it but it may swing the usage majority towards legit markets.
I have no idea, really. My initial statement in this thread was an emotion driven one.
That is one of the more honest admissions I seen. Like I said, I've been around long enough to have seen it occur in real time - and I regularly argued with people in the early years... I almost miss the beany baby comparisons. The majority of the time the beef seemed to be ego shielding, followed by a slightly smaller group that was just frustrated about reality not aligning to their world model. But the journalists that had declared bitcoin to be dead at some point in the past - those were the most unhinged... I'm talking life ruination levels of assmad.
Clueless people didn't start showing up in appreciable numbers until much later, well after the events of the MtGox implosion. Even then they stuck mostly to the scamcoins, because "who can afford spending $125 for one coin?!"
I don't know what you're referring to with regard to centralized control lending credibility, but I will say that fungibility is a property of currency that people generally don't seem to understand - and that you may want to consider proposed "anti-fraud" methods in that light. That was what we were talking about years ago - a currency, that was the premise. It still is, there is just a more representative cross section of the general population showing up now - unsurprisingly half of them posses a below average level of intelligence.
Clueless people didn't start showing up in appreciable numbers until much later, well after the events of the MtGox implosion. Even then they stuck mostly to the scamcoins, because "who can afford spending $125 for one coin?!"
I don't know what you're referring to with regard to centralized control lending credibility, but I will say that fungibility is a property of currency that people generally don't seem to understand - and that you may want to consider proposed "anti-fraud" methods in that light. That was what we were talking about years ago - a currency, that was the premise. It still is, there is just a more representative cross section of the general population showing up now - unsurprisingly half of them posses a below average level of intelligence.
Thank you EU - Bitcoin transactions weren’t traceable at ALL before.
Sounds like this will only cause people to trade more in crypto. It's not like bitcoin needs to be able to be traded to fiat to be useful as an item for transferring value.
Maybe that's the point. By accelerating the use of it as a currency, it may become more widely used by larger commercial interests that the government can lean on.
This is good for Bitcoin.
(really, we need more traffic to go to fully decentralized exchanges)
Can the DEX's work even if they are outlawed in the future?
Like torrents or dark markets. Technically not a problem, but will cause more effort and risks for creators (goodbye VC backed "Decentralized" swaps) and higher costs for clients who will pay for covering those risks.
I assure you, though, that some sneaky guy from Africa, Russia, Ukraine or China would always find his way to help people changing their money.
Btw, in theory there is a way to create completely decentralized versions (hosting frontend on IPFS/torrents/other distributed storage) and the whole backend made on smart-contract, but it would be slower and harder to use than current systems with partially centralized backends and CDN js/static distribution.
I assure you, though, that some sneaky guy from Africa, Russia, Ukraine or China would always find his way to help people changing their money.
Btw, in theory there is a way to create completely decentralized versions (hosting frontend on IPFS/torrents/other distributed storage) and the whole backend made on smart-contract, but it would be slower and harder to use than current systems with partially centralized backends and CDN js/static distribution.
Can TCP/IP still work if it's outlawed?
This is going to work out just as well as when the EU banned tracking cookies!
I know this is an unpopular take, but for sites (like Stackoverflow) that give me options (if they don't, some times I just skip), I will select "strict" and continue. This is probably an improvement from previous status-quo for me.
If they were competent, they would have worked with web browser developers, and made it browser side like other permission dialogs.
Imagine what could have been: a standardised prompt that is always the same, persists when clearing cookies, etc. Instead we have full screen modal popups that render 5 seconds after page load and move around while loading.
Imagine what could have been: a standardised prompt that is always the same, persists when clearing cookies, etc. Instead we have full screen modal popups that render 5 seconds after page load and move around while loading.
You mean "do not track"?
Good luck with that, even the EU was smart enough to know that that's not an option.
"Do not track" isn't even close to what I'm talking about. The only difference would be that the cookie banner is presented by the browser in a standardised way, similar to e.g. the webcam permissions dialogue. It would have the same (non-existent) legal enforcability as now but the browser could enforce it by blocking cookies and sites would be more usable, with fewer dark patterns.
Ah so a new Web API ?
That could work, yes.
That could work, yes.
Yes, what people really need when they browse the internet is to be asked every ten seconds what kind of cookies they want, every time a different form with different options that loads so many third-party scripts that my browser chokes...and then you have to fill out the form.
I can see why bureaucrats like this system though, try to inflict the horror of their jobs onto everyone else.
And ofc, this makes no difference for tracking at all. Most people just click whatever option is the default, they have no idea what cookies are, they have no idea how the cookies are being used because the forms don't tell you...what is the decision that is supposedly been improved here? People are still being tracked, but we showed them a totally baffling form and they clicked "Yes"...society has been preserved.
Oh, and you have now split the internet into different regions...it was all worth it, no ragrats.
I can see why bureaucrats like this system though, try to inflict the horror of their jobs onto everyone else.
And ofc, this makes no difference for tracking at all. Most people just click whatever option is the default, they have no idea what cookies are, they have no idea how the cookies are being used because the forms don't tell you...what is the decision that is supposedly been improved here? People are still being tracked, but we showed them a totally baffling form and they clicked "Yes"...society has been preserved.
Oh, and you have now split the internet into different regions...it was all worth it, no ragrats.
I'm mostly pro-EU but the cookie thing is just a display of unbelievable incompetence. It's ridiculous that they still haven't fixed the highly annoying popup problem.
Exactly, I block all cookies (except for a whitelist of sites I need to log into) and that ironically prevents the fucking popups from tracking that they have been clicked away or agreed to.
I use uBlock origin and various CSS injection to get rid of the popups but they don't catch every single one of them.
I wish the US would institute law making unsolicited (i.e. not triggered by a user click, like clicking on "Login") popups illegal, arrest the CEOs of companies that violate this, put them in a CEO jail for a week, make them wear an "I suck" T-shirt and dunce cap, and live stream their faces the entire time.
I use uBlock origin and various CSS injection to get rid of the popups but they don't catch every single one of them.
I wish the US would institute law making unsolicited (i.e. not triggered by a user click, like clicking on "Login") popups illegal, arrest the CEOs of companies that violate this, put them in a CEO jail for a week, make them wear an "I suck" T-shirt and dunce cap, and live stream their faces the entire time.
>arrest the CEOs of companies that violate this, put them in a CEO jail for a week, and live stream their faces the entire time.
I was with you until this point. Then it just turned into vengeance porn.
I was with you until this point. Then it just turned into vengeance porn.
You are blocking a legitimate use of the web platform.
It is as if you set a dns to the other side of the globe, disabled browser cache and then complained that pages now take longer to load.
Tracking is bad, scary, and with worring consequences in how much ML can predict statical human behaviour, but the solution is not "cookies bad" or "ads bad".
If a website as any kind of first-onboarding interaction (be it a video, some marketing crap, asking for permissions, or whatever) and you disable _any_ form of tracking how are they supposed to know it is not your first visit?
Many of those website do not need to track you, many do so with malicious intent, but the concept of the consent modal itself serves a useful purpose
It is as if you set a dns to the other side of the globe, disabled browser cache and then complained that pages now take longer to load.
Tracking is bad, scary, and with worring consequences in how much ML can predict statical human behaviour, but the solution is not "cookies bad" or "ads bad".
If a website as any kind of first-onboarding interaction (be it a video, some marketing crap, asking for permissions, or whatever) and you disable _any_ form of tracking how are they supposed to know it is not your first visit?
Many of those website do not need to track you, many do so with malicious intent, but the concept of the consent modal itself serves a useful purpose
> I'm mostly pro-EU but the cookie thing is just a display of unbelievable incompetence.
this is an example of you knowing the area they're legislating in better than they do
they're just as bad in pretty much every other area too
this is an example of you knowing the area they're legislating in better than they do
they're just as bad in pretty much every other area too
What do you want them to do about that? The vast majority of those popups are already illegal according to GDPR. More legislation wouldn't fix that, I think.
When did the EU ban tracking cookies?
The EU regulates tracking cookies. They're not banned, but the requirements for their use are rather strict, due to the interactions between the ePrivacy Directive (2002) and the GDPR (2016).
To GP's broader point, "what about GDPR?" the GDPR basically steps back when other laws apply. Processing personal data requires a legal basis, and one option for legal basis is "Legal Requirement," so if another law says it's required, GDPR says it's OK. And furthermore several provisions (like erasure) don't necessarily apply. GDPR would impose some restrictions like access and notice. The biggest issue is going to be "who is the Controller?", i.e. who 'owns' the data and who is in control of the processing?
To GP's broader point, "what about GDPR?" the GDPR basically steps back when other laws apply. Processing personal data requires a legal basis, and one option for legal basis is "Legal Requirement," so if another law says it's required, GDPR says it's OK. And furthermore several provisions (like erasure) don't necessarily apply. GDPR would impose some restrictions like access and notice. The biggest issue is going to be "who is the Controller?", i.e. who 'owns' the data and who is in control of the processing?
Instead of making meaningful change, the EU proceeded to make almost every European website 10x worse with egregious cookie nag screens filled with dark patterns.
They trained users to accept all advertising cookies, while being massive hypocrites (a lot of EU bureaucratic websites ship user data to Google via GA or GTM).
The EU is one of the biggest threats to online freedom. Threatening to ban memes, egregious copyright laws to serve Hollywood interests, cookie nag screens and US media excluding EU IPs altogether because EU law is insane.
Access to media within the EU has never been worse. A significant portion of US news media exclude all EU traffic due to regulation.
They trained users to accept all advertising cookies, while being massive hypocrites (a lot of EU bureaucratic websites ship user data to Google via GA or GTM).
The EU is one of the biggest threats to online freedom. Threatening to ban memes, egregious copyright laws to serve Hollywood interests, cookie nag screens and US media excluding EU IPs altogether because EU law is insane.
Access to media within the EU has never been worse. A significant portion of US news media exclude all EU traffic due to regulation.
> Instead of making meaningful change,
Meaningful change: the ways that web sites track you are now disclosed and require your explicit consent.
> the EU proceeded to make almost every European website 10x worse with egregious cookie nag screens filled with dark patterns.
It is the web sites that have chosen to make your experience worse. The blame lies with them.
Meaningful change: the ways that web sites track you are now disclosed and require your explicit consent.
> the EU proceeded to make almost every European website 10x worse with egregious cookie nag screens filled with dark patterns.
It is the web sites that have chosen to make your experience worse. The blame lies with them.
Does that not make you wonder what it is that they want to track which is so incompatible with those regulations that they'd rather ban the traffic?
Tracking is a choice. uBlock Origin is a free download. Geoblocking is not a choice.
EU citizens are worse off only having access to insular media with one viewpoint. If you're German and a significant amount of foreign media is either blocked or scorned, you end up enabling giant frauds like Wirecard.
Germany's homegrown DW had fawning coverage of the fraud, calling it remarkable and a "weapon against poverty". [1] [2]
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/whats-behind-the-remarkable-rise-of-ge...
[2] https://www.dw.com/en/is-fintech-the-latest-weapon-in-the-fi...
EU citizens are worse off only having access to insular media with one viewpoint. If you're German and a significant amount of foreign media is either blocked or scorned, you end up enabling giant frauds like Wirecard.
Germany's homegrown DW had fawning coverage of the fraud, calling it remarkable and a "weapon against poverty". [1] [2]
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/whats-behind-the-remarkable-rise-of-ge...
[2] https://www.dw.com/en/is-fintech-the-latest-weapon-in-the-fi...
For what it's worth DW is not allowed to broadcast in Germany and therefore relatively unknown amongst Germans.
EU regulations are all over the place. There is no cohesive moral thread behind any of them.
Firstly, they introduced GDPR regulations to prevent companies and organizations from collecting data on citizens... But now they introduce regulations to force companies and organizations to collect data on citizens. It's ridiculous.
It's frightening that the government could possibly win a case in a court of law with such fundamentally flawed logic. What would the verdict be like? "Collecting data on people is illegal, but it's also illegal to not collect data, therefore you are guilty!"
That must be how totalitarianism comes about; make sure everyone is guilty of something, then you can arrest all your political opponents on any pretext you like.
What is the point of the law if it contradicts itself? We may as well go back to living in caves.
Firstly, they introduced GDPR regulations to prevent companies and organizations from collecting data on citizens... But now they introduce regulations to force companies and organizations to collect data on citizens. It's ridiculous.
It's frightening that the government could possibly win a case in a court of law with such fundamentally flawed logic. What would the verdict be like? "Collecting data on people is illegal, but it's also illegal to not collect data, therefore you are guilty!"
That must be how totalitarianism comes about; make sure everyone is guilty of something, then you can arrest all your political opponents on any pretext you like.
What is the point of the law if it contradicts itself? We may as well go back to living in caves.
Sorry, but bitcoin has always been "traceable".
everytime bitcoin reaches a High value.. some bad news appears on the internet..
[deleted]
europe will also ban the practicing of arithmetic and mathematics
lol
Monero and Pirate Chain will reach the moon in 2 years.
How are they going to require this in open source crypto wallet applications that download to your computer. They can be made outside of the EU. Downloaded by EU citizens.
[deleted]
It is very hard to ban math. An “anonymous wallet” is a random number!
> In practice, this means that a service provider exchanging crypto on behalf of a customer would have to record their name, address, date of birth and account number, as well as the name of the intended recipient of the transfer.
As usual, the regulation checkpoint is at the exchanges.
As usual, the regulation checkpoint is at the exchanges.
[deleted]
And what happens when you transfer it to a mixer? A self-hosted wallet? Or the EU regulate exchanges to the point you can't transfer your Bitcoin to a wallet you own?
> “Or the EU regulate exchanges to the point you can't transfer your Bitcoin to a wallet you own?”
Why not? The EU regulates banks to the point that you can’t transfer money to an account in North Korea. It’s not obvious why Bitcoin exchanges should be regulated differently (as you can’t prove the random Bitcoin address isn’t controlled by NK).
Why not? The EU regulates banks to the point that you can’t transfer money to an account in North Korea. It’s not obvious why Bitcoin exchanges should be regulated differently (as you can’t prove the random Bitcoin address isn’t controlled by NK).
Not allowing individuals autonomy over how they choose to spend their own money sounds authoritarian.
You live in a country where everything is legal to buy and sell, then?
Mixers will be considered illegal by the EU. It sort of makes sense. Mixers are primarily used to hide one's identity when doing shady/illegal things with cryptocurrency.
What about deFi swappers?
No, they're cool with that specific kind of money laundering.
It's very hard to ban math. It's very easy to ban communications, which may happen to contain math.
In other news, the government has declared by decree that nobody is allowed to memorize seed phrases anymore.
Also, multiplying prime numbers is now illegal.
edit: Downvotes are funny because we are almost certainly going to see laws passed in the next few years that are functionally equivalent to the rules stated above.
Also, multiplying prime numbers is now illegal.
edit: Downvotes are funny because we are almost certainly going to see laws passed in the next few years that are functionally equivalent to the rules stated above.
In other news, the government has declared by decree that you can't move objects outside of an arbitrarily defined border that a piece of paper says is someone's "house", and then exchange those objects for different pieces of paper that the very same government has declared has value.
abstracting these things to sound silly doesn't move you outside the realm of well established norms regarding the government's role in mediating property rights through force.
what I wrote above is in a totally different ballpark - and we should expect to see government laws that pop up that do in fact attempt to regulate digit memorization or multiplication.
what I wrote above is in a totally different ballpark - and we should expect to see government laws that pop up that do in fact attempt to regulate digit memorization or multiplication.
Yeah, it would be, if done to pursue ends that the law has deemed criminal. This isn't the gotcha you might think it is, because no one is going to bat an eye at your attempt to boil the nuance of a law out in an effort to expose some underlying paradox that only matters on a technical level. I'm not saying that the law will be wise, or efficacious, or even really pertinent, just that we already have ways of reconciling what you may perceive as being an intractable problem. Like, laws against theft don't mean that any action where I take something of yours without express permission is theft, like a genuine intent with the context that it was needed to safely handle an immediate hazard to life or limb.
That example is admittedly weak, but do you see where I'm going with that?
That example is admittedly weak, but do you see where I'm going with that?
I see where you are going, but I'm not arguing that the government won't be willing or able to enforce what transactions are permissible if they can prove the multiplication involved was used to facilitate an exchange.
What I am saying is that governments who are passing laws not to regulate transactions, but to prevent the use of cryptocurrencies in general, will fail due to a first principles analysis of what they'll be trying to do.
What I am saying is that governments who are passing laws not to regulate transactions, but to prevent the use of cryptocurrencies in general, will fail due to a first principles analysis of what they'll be trying to do.
The downvotes you are getting is for not reading the article.
Your comment is not on-topic.
Your comment is not on-topic.
I read the article. Why is what I wrote not on-topic?
I tend to think the government will find its attempts to rein in crypto will just feed into the anti-fragility of the whole thing, and the result will be increasingly nonsensical attempts to stomp it out up until capitulation.
And yes, this leads to a prediction that some very technologically illiterate legislators will probably draft rules that are semantically equivalent to what I wrote.
I tend to think the government will find its attempts to rein in crypto will just feed into the anti-fragility of the whole thing, and the result will be increasingly nonsensical attempts to stomp it out up until capitulation.
And yes, this leads to a prediction that some very technologically illiterate legislators will probably draft rules that are semantically equivalent to what I wrote.
The title is simply incorrect and clickbait, so it should be changed. I think that is a quite relevant point
if the employees in charge of writing this legislation understood bitcoin enough to even consider that it would be impressive
but they don't, in the same way they don't understand cookies, databases or stock exchanges
none of this stops them legislating though...
but they don't, in the same way they don't understand cookies, databases or stock exchanges
none of this stops them legislating though...
To build on this; Is code equivalent to speech? Is Bitcoin free speech?
Probably not, and no.
You must be joking.
https://www.eff.org/cases/bernstein-v-us-dept-justice?elqTra...
https://www.eff.org/cases/bernstein-v-us-dept-justice?elqTra...
Reaffirming the fact that Cash is king, as far as traceability is concerned. Unless of course, the FBI is tracking the bill numbers. But for all nefarious activities good old fashioned cash rules. No transaction or 'gas' fees either. If you can handle the physical bulk/inconvenience.
Bitcoin transactions take minutes or even hours to settle sometime, so 'digital speed' is vaporware at this point.
Bitcoin transactions take minutes or even hours to settle sometime, so 'digital speed' is vaporware at this point.
Yeah but cash you have to physically transfer and exchange, which places you at a place at a point in time. Which is the ultimate "trace".
However, I sort of expected more people on here would sympathize with the Cypherpunk Manifesto [1] and band together against pressures to minimize our privacy.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28114156
[1]: https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html