Quote from: Satofan44 on August 15, 2025, 08:09:57 PM

We talked about FATF and potential future dangers. I believe this news is relevant for this sub topic.

It is relevant as it shows what certain organizations are thinking and planning, but it still is a (big) step away from the scenarios which could become relevant if Bitcoin becomes really dominated by governments and big corporations. The "score" they are proposing would be basically an unified intergubernamental variant of AMLbot and friends, but it would be outside of Bitcoin's technical consensus.

If Cross-Input Signature Aggregation became reality and most people would transact via CoinJoins it could be very difficult for this score to give any meaningful result. And if they started blocking exchange inflows of all CoinJoins, then people would probably resort massively to P2P. And to forbid that, much more massive BigBrother-style measures would have to be enacted, which I doubt would be accepted by voters. Trump probably won also because of the unclear statements of the Democrat camp in regard to privacy.

Quote from: Outhue on August 17, 2025, 03:44:50 PM

I don't feel the same way that I used to feel about Bitcoin anymore, I guess this is because the government is all over it right now, the massive adoption from the government instead of the retails and normal people like us hurts my guts.

I'm still not worried at the current level of reserves (less than 500,000 if we only take governments, less than 2 million if we also take into account corporations, excluding ETFs and exchanges which aren't legally "holders"), even if they were 3-4 times higher or so the rest of the Bitcoin hodlers would still be dominant enough to reject any consensus changes proposed by a "FATF lobbyist group" or so. I also expect the ETFs to not grow that much more, at most doubling (and I believe in the upcoming bear they will lose some importance again).