Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 06:09:11 PM

Quote from: legiteum on Today at 05:29:07 PM

And yes, the US government wants to stop terrorism, and the attacks on our private institutions (esp. hospitals) that make use of tools that allow them to be paid without being traced.

You can't, though. Even if the excuse of surveilling everyone "for the sake of the children" was not ridiculous to begin with, it's simply no longer feasible in practice. The Internet makes it virtually impossible to monitor those who take care of their privacy, just as it makes it impractical to prevent encrypted messages from being transmitted. You're only increasing the potential harm for innocent people.

That would be an argument for no law enforcement whatsoever: you can't stop all crime, so why even try to stop any crime. And it's just silly.

And lots of crypto-based crimes have in fact been thwarted by chain analysis and so on, and there are a lot of things law enforcement can do to make it harder for criminals to succeed. It won't be 100%--nothing is--but they can certainly make it a lot harder to be successful, and thus reduce the number of attacks.

Quote

Quote

But that's 0.01% of the market that even cares about that. Most people use a KYC'd exchange anyhow because they have nothing to hide from the government if they were to specifically target them.

I don't care what percentage that is. Discriminating people that self-custody their bitcoin is criminal, IMO, and definitely anti-Bitcoin.

Sure, but you don't get to make you your own definitions based on your personal preferences

.

Besides, if you want to do crime, wouldn't a criminal use Monero (etc.) instead? I would doubt that Bitcoin itself is used at all for crime anymore because of chain analysis. Even with a mixer it seems like it would be risky.

So if that's the case, then placing anti-money laundering rules on Bitcoin-USD transactions seems like it would affect about zero people.

Quote

Quote

You are whistling past the graveyard if you don't think this is a significant new risk to Bitcoin.

I don't consider him saint. I'm just noticing his stance on certain things, like crypto, and compare him to the other candidate. Given that one of them is anti-Bitcoin, because he uses tax payer money to fund blockchain surveillance and wants to pass laws that discriminate the very essence of bitcoin, I don't have high standards for the other one.

So both candidates will continue the anti-money laundering rules for Bitcoin etc., but one of them carries the risk of corruptly destroying the entire Bitcoin market for his own gain--and yet you still liked Trump more? Very strange.

Keep in mind, by the way, that the $billions that the crypto universe pumped into US elections this year was from centralized brokers like Coinbase and Binance, not by self-custodial individual Bitcoin holders. As such, those are the companies who will be determining Bitcoin policy under Trump, not people like yourself...