Quote from: goldkingcoiner on August 02, 2025, 09:05:00 PM

Any donations received in Bitcoin are the same as any donations received in paper fiat. You need to be able to prove with a paper trail or a digital trail where the money comes from, otherwise anyone who wants to launder money from criminal activities could claim to have received an anonymous "donation". Luckily it is not a hard thing to prove as in the case of Frank and Sonya, they are dating and Frank can confirm that the Bitcoin indeed came from him as a donation. And Franks confirmation is all the proof the bank would require from Sonya.

So I sell strawberries in summer time, and someone pays me $10 for a bucket.

Before he paid me, he got the $10 note from the cashier at the supermarket.
Before the supermarket, it was at the hair dresser.
Before the hair dresser, it was used at the gas station.
Before the gas station, it was used at an Italian restaurant.

But at that Italian restaurant, a gang member used this $10 that came from a drug trade.

I don't get in trouble for accepting $10 that was previously used in a drug trade though.

My point is that it is impossible to follow the entire trail of money, whether it is bitcoin or fiat currency. In this example there are only 5 exchanges, but in real life it has been exchanged thousands of times before you receive it.

People can trace all bitcoin movement on the blockchain, but not every transaction can be linked to an ID.
Banks will fail in their efforts of tracing every single BTC transaction, linking it to the ID of their customers, and subsequently trying to tax every single transaction.

In fact sucking value out of every transaction to keep their fiat currency ponzi scheme from collapsing.

In my opinion what we are witnessing are the early stages of real money (bitcoin) outperforming their dying fiat currency scam.
Soon I expect them to take extreme measures, trying to prevent their customers from investing in crypto currencies. Unless of course it happens on their government controlled platforms, which they control for 100%. So they can tax all transactions with impunity.

They want complete control over this market and forbidding self custody will be a key issue for that.
I expect them to use terrorism and fraud as the excuse to forbid self custody.

I just wonder who wins in the end