Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 01:05:38 PM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 07:00:49 AM

If a merchant accepts bitcoin directly then (at least for the time being) they can avoid this, but if they use a payment processor then they will be collecting KYC as well as information on the source of your funds for all transactions.

If a merchant is directly accepting bitcoin in exchange for goods or services, then they are simply a merchant who accepts bitcoin, and are not a "crypto-asset service provider". If a merchant, however, uses a payment processor to accept bitcoin in exchange for goods or services, then the payment processor is a "crypto-asset service provider", providing services on behalf of the merchant, and are therefore obligated to collect KYC and information about the coins you are spending.

Oh, OK. The fact is that I can't imagine today any large company, such as a supermarket, as we were talking about in the example, accepting payments directly, and, in addition, non-custodial wallets using maximum privacy. Let's remember that the draft is also targeting non-custodial centralized wallets. I can hardly imagine a supermarket like Walmart in Europe without using a payment processor and using Electrum via Tor, or a similar system.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 01:05:38 PM

That's my understanding, at least, but not being from the EU I am hardly an expert on EU law, and if EU politicians are anything like US politicians, they will openly twist and interpret the wording to mean whatever they want it to mean.

Traditionally in Europe they are more social democratic than in the USA, which has some good pros, but one of the cons is giving up degrees of freedom voluntarily so that the State has more power, as it would be in this case regarding surveillance and control.