Replies (75)
Yes because bitcoin is not fungible. It transmits value as well as history. They history is what makes one bitcoin different from any other. They are not the same.
L0la L33tz
Economists at the Bank of International Settlements just proposed that *any coin* that has *ever* passed through a no-KYC wallet should be banned from regulated services.
The economists argue that their approach would enable a culture of self-policing, or “duty of care,” in which even users of non-custodial wallets would not accept no-KYC coins, report illicit activity, and engage in voluntary KYC.
View quoted note →
This is an emergency and we need to establish rights to self custody, privacy and revision of AML laws instead of focusing any more attention on the bullshit strategic reserve. If there is any ounce of truth to the current white house being “friendly” to bitcoin then we have to stop wasting our political capital immediately.
Good luck with that
I think they will lose that battle
who needs the central bank of central banks, when there no more central banks. tourists will "ramp off", so be it, the rest of us will settle in bitcoin no matter what.
Pardon my French but Unregistered sats are the true "fuck you money."
Tell it to the BIS.
L0la L33tz
Economists at the Bank of International Settlements just proposed that *any coin* that has *ever* passed through a no-KYC wallet should be banned from regulated services.
The economists argue that their approach would enable a culture of self-policing, or “duty of care,” in which even users of non-custodial wallets would not accept no-KYC coins, report illicit activity, and engage in voluntary KYC.
View quoted note →
I’m not exactly an optimist but this is one of those things where they can just go fuck themselves lol. At a certain point we all just need to start operating in the parallel economy.
But guns and cops and prisons are real. And those things will continue to be threats as long as there is terrible privacy within bitcoin
They will always be threats.
But realize the people with monopolies on violence are not omnipotent. They do not have the man power or funding or support to wage a war on people who use Bitcoin. There are way too many users and there is no way to enforce using no-KYC Bitcoin even if they wanted to.
But realistically those in power have their hands more than full and thousands of other groups who they are more worried about. Prisons are full, courts are clogged. Thinking govts will tear out after millions of bitcoiner’s are just anxious delusions.
There are note users of Monero than there care actual users of Bitcoin in everyday commerce.
They are stifling the next wave of real adoption.
The BIS can make like a tree and fuck off
They don't seem to get it.
That was the whole idea behind Travel Rule: to shackle the uncontrollable Bitcoin transactions by a rigid centralized database. BIS et al will ban themselves from Bitcoin. ETF and paper bitcoin holders will remain tax slaves. Freedom is anon.
Bitcoin privacy is fine. Just don't EVER off-ramp with KYC. Period.
It’s unfeasible and cannot work long time. Hironically if actually enforced will accelerate non-kyc adoption (had a long convo with chat gpt yesterday about this and was super interesting).
While the initial emotion we get might be fear, this is actually good I believe
Keep writing ✍️ the good fight 🗡️
I just read this article somewhere else and went what the? Amazingly well done by you and scary for us.
SHOULD HAVE USED MONERO!
#bitcoin
#monero
#SHUM
L0la L33tz
Economists at the Bank of International Settlements just proposed that *any coin* that has *ever* passed through a no-KYC wallet should be banned from regulated services.
The economists argue that their approach would enable a culture of self-policing, or “duty of care,” in which even users of non-custodial wallets would not accept no-KYC coins, report illicit activity, and engage in voluntary KYC.
View quoted note →
Kill the Fed and get two birds with one stone
Shocking, I tell you.
#monero fixes this.
Are you beginning to see the problem with having normalized transparency yet?
L0la L33tz
Economists at the Bank of International Settlements just proposed that *any coin* that has *ever* passed through a no-KYC wallet should be banned from regulated services.
The economists argue that their approach would enable a culture of self-policing, or “duty of care,” in which even users of non-custodial wallets would not accept no-KYC coins, report illicit activity, and engage in voluntary KYC.
View quoted note →
Inevitable that this will happen if BTC does not get onchain privacy.
Try making that argument about taxes. They don’t need man power when they can use AI to analyze large swathes of data in seconds. And nowadays it takes a phone call to turn off your bank account. You are underestimating the drive of the government to suck you dry of every last dollar
Yeah sure I'll KYC myself
Wouldn’t proof of reserves for Bitcoin treasury companies be the only way for this to work? Then the paper Bitcoin will be exposed.
I am not an economist, but argue we should just use bitcoin as a store of value, medium of exchange, and medium of account.
The point is now
if? no, because.
It doent matter anymore, if this goes ahead is game over for sovereignity bitcoin!
Good luck playing with your regulated KYCd wallets!
L0la L33tz
Economists at the Bank of International Settlements just proposed that *any coin* that has *ever* passed through a no-KYC wallet should be banned from regulated services.
The economists argue that their approach would enable a culture of self-policing, or “duty of care,” in which even users of non-custodial wallets would not accept no-KYC coins, report illicit activity, and engage in voluntary KYC.
View quoted note →
E lá vamos nós
L0la L33tz
Economists at the Bank of International Settlements just proposed that *any coin* that has *ever* passed through a no-KYC wallet should be banned from regulated services.
The economists argue that their approach would enable a culture of self-policing, or “duty of care,” in which even users of non-custodial wallets would not accept no-KYC coins, report illicit activity, and engage in voluntary KYC.
View quoted note →
No privacy by default no party!
L0la L33tz
Economists at the Bank of International Settlements just proposed that *any coin* that has *ever* passed through a no-KYC wallet should be banned from regulated services.
The economists argue that their approach would enable a culture of self-policing, or “duty of care,” in which even users of non-custodial wallets would not accept no-KYC coins, report illicit activity, and engage in voluntary KYC.
View quoted note →
If dont has privacy by default i dont care and i will nit touch it!
Simple!
You dont understand what this means?
All non kyc wallets are fucked!
Do you want to run KYC run, i will not!
L0la L33tz
Economists at the Bank of International Settlements just proposed that *any coin* that has *ever* passed through a no-KYC wallet should be banned from regulated services.
The economists argue that their approach would enable a culture of self-policing, or “duty of care,” in which even users of non-custodial wallets would not accept no-KYC coins, report illicit activity, and engage in voluntary KYC.
View quoted note →
i propose any currency that has passed through the BIS, be viewed as valueless, dangerous, and unfit for common exchange.
Someone will accept my non-KYC coins for a service provided, bring on peer to peer payments
Now imagine that instead of KYC money it is KYC gold and that there are natural ways of quality controlling if gold is real. And that given that a lot of people would anyway accept the non kYC gold, because it has value
You are more of a economist then they are, because you got it.
They are thiefs, thats all.
If this don't boost the bitcoin circular economy into hyperdrive nothing will. Careful what you wish for BIS. We all know "well meaning fiat decrees" have unintended consequences..
View quoted note →Me living in a none regulated community.
Sure. 😝
Their terms are acceptable. Happy for them to ban themselves from bitcoin.
Good luck BIS! Bitcoin don't care about your fiat decrees, it doesn't even recognize your existence. Fork off!
We should be cautious though, and carefully prepare the community for how to argue against - and fight against - such KYC proposals
The US is offering tax breaks to miners in the US. Maybe those tax breaks will become conditional on the miner censoring certain transactions
That would have only a tiny impact, as other miners will include those transactions in the next block. But those small attacks could add up over time
I think it's critical the we encourage bitcoin adoption (merchants, mining, SBRs) around the world, starting with African countries and India and so on, in order to make it more difficult for one county (the US) or one bloc (the EU) to cause trouble
I never understood KYC.. especially when it is pushed by the very same criminals that run free in the world.
Bis being an organized thieft institution pushing for KYC to protect the criminals from what?
The perversion is blood boiling.
L0la L33tz
Economists at the Bank of International Settlements just proposed that *any coin* that has *ever* passed through a no-KYC wallet should be banned from regulated services.
The economists argue that their approach would enable a culture of self-policing, or “duty of care,” in which even users of non-custodial wallets would not accept no-KYC coins, report illicit activity, and engage in voluntary KYC.
View quoted note →
I propose to replace the economists of the BIS with people who actually know what they're talking about when it comes to global finance.
This just shows fiat money has never been about being an efficient medium of exchange and always has been about control.
Not surprising.
Atlas Shrugged happening live.
There will be two worlds: the free, “dangerous” world of the underdogs who chose to live outside the system, and the captured, “safe” world of the compliant servants of central planning
Since the majority of bitcoin exists in self-custody wallets, the BIS is proposing that the majority of bitcoin should be considered "bad" bitcoin.
Why stop at bitcoin? They should be able to say which cars, houses, pieces of art, or gold coins are "bad" too!
To them, value isn't subjective and determined my market participants...it's whatever the hell they say it is.
L0la L33tz
Economists at the Bank of International Settlements just proposed that *any coin* that has *ever* passed through a no-KYC wallet should be banned from regulated services.
The economists argue that their approach would enable a culture of self-policing, or “duty of care,” in which even users of non-custodial wallets would not accept no-KYC coins, report illicit activity, and engage in voluntary KYC.
View quoted note →
They want a future where all your money transactions are tracked.
But #bitcoining is about peer-to-peer electronic cash. Noone else should be part of those transactions.
Thank goodness for
@peachbitcoin and
@Robosats 🔥
View quoted note →Someone should tell Augustus Carstens he can go on food binges more discretely if he uses coinjoin.
I took econ 101 in college, but honestly think I learned more stacking boxes in a truck while listening to audiobooks and podcasts like EconTalk.
Lol.
I propose to eliminate the BIS and all global central banks, eliminate all global fiat currency, past laws in all countries requiring balanced budgets, and require scarce money such as #Monero, #Gold, and #Bitcoin. Any person who violates any of the above shall be executed by lethal injection.
I'll accept Monero over your dirty Bitcoin every single time.
Bitcoin forked a second time in KYC shit and non KYC taint.
The outcome will be horrible on both ends of the spectrum.
Great work L0la.
Bifurcation of the Bitcoins shall commence.
What happens when the majority of the coin has touched a non Institutional hand.
What then?
Joke's on them.. every single bitcoin has hit a non-KYC wallet by definition. Guess they're just gonna ban themselves from the network?
Sorry but this is a load of bullshit and insulting to people who have been caught up in this stuff like Ross. The cypherpunks would have used encryption regardless but they purposely brought the fight to the government so schmucks like me and you could get a modicum of privacy without having to be political dissidents.
And they can all go fuck themselves.
I will take any satoshi given to me or in exchange for any value perceived.
I will exchange any satoshi for any value I find.
View quoted note →Exactly, just fucking don't use their shit economy.
This is the future of all Blockchain tokens. The only way to avoid is is to use an anonymous Blockchain by design. AKA Monero.
But even that won't help. The regulator would find a way to make Monero unpractical. Yes, tech savvy individuals will find a way to use it. But the normal Joe on the street will be to afraid of it. Thus rendering Monero a geek novelty.
There is only one solution. It's not an easy one, but it would work. A philosophical revolution. When the people will understand that privacy is a right (and hold a correct concept of rights), these proposals will be rejected just like slavery.
Thats the neat part, services will be unregulated in the future. 😅
The Bank of International Unsettelments be like :
“Please, please, please don’t use theses sats, don’t use them please, use our broken dollars money”
View quoted note →A slave is a slave because he fears to use the tools that destroy his identity that he dismisses for his life.
Defund the BIS
That would have serious consequences for the food industry if we take Augustus Carstens out the game.
The "economists" can argue all they want. The BIS can go phuk themselves.
Exactly why you need privacy coins and why bitcoin is a trap.
Russo
## Bitcoin Reserve: How govs will steal from you to build the reserves?
The evolving landscape of Bitcoin is increasingly influenced by state-level tracking and regulatory frameworks. As governments develop systems to monitor and control Bitcoin transactions, the implications for users and the market are profound.
### The Trackability of Bitcoin at State Level
Bitcoin operates on a public ledger, making it **pseudonymous**. While individual users can maintain privacy through various techniques, state-level entities can effectively track transactions.
- **Chain Analytics**: Firms and government agencies can analyze transaction flows and link them to real-world identities, especially when users interact with regulated services.
- **Revelio Insights**: The Revelio paper illustrates how network-level observations on ligthning network can reveal custodial holdings and flows, enabling state-level attribution.
### The Custodial vs. Non-Custodial Wallet System
A new regulatory framework is emerging that distinguishes between custodial and non-custodial wallets:
- **KYC/AML Compliance**: Regulators will require that wallets and custodians interoperate only through channels that enforce Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules.
- **Isolation of Non-Compliant Wallets**: Wallets that do not comply will be unable to transact with regulated entities, effectively isolating them from the broader financial ecosystem.
### The Mechanics of Blocking and Seizing Funds
States are developing mechanisms to control Bitcoin transactions, which could lead to the seizure of funds:
- **Transaction Failures**: When a user attempts to make a purchase, if the transaction fails compliance checks (e.g., BIS), the funds are blocked.
- **Government-Controlled Reserves**: Blocked funds will be redirected to a government-controlled Bitcoin reserve, effectively allowing states to seize assets under the guise of regulatory compliance.
### Market Implications for Users
The implications of these developments for users are significant:
- **Reduced Autonomy**: Users relying on regulated exchanges and custodial wallets will find their assets increasingly linkable and subject to seizure.
- **Increased Friction**: The need to comply with KYC/AML regulations will create barriers for users, limiting their ability to transact freely.
### Last but not least
The combination of state-level tracking and a bifurcated wallet system creates a plausible pathway for governments to seize Bitcoin. As compliance becomes a requirement for interoperability, users must navigate a landscape where their assets are at risk of being redirected to government reserves. This shift fundamentally alters the original vision of Bitcoin as a decentralized currency, raising critical questions about user autonomy and financial freedom.
#bitcoin
#nostr
#grownostr
#monero
View quoted note →
Damn, two birds, one stone.
Then the value of the Bitcoin that hasn't would skyrocket.
Illegal #Bitcoin is the real bitcoin
View quoted note →The moment they talk to anybody who knows how Bitcoin works, they'll realize this is impossible. Or they already have, and it's a non-serious proposal just meant to spread FUD for some reason. Probably Larry Fink just wants to stack some cheaper sats.
The fiat banking pushback continues
Know anyone that has black SATs? Need to score some black SATs.
What are you talking about? Non-black market Bitcoin is what would increase in value. All the stuff associated with crime will be worth much less.
There's no fire, or dragons, or practical way to keep non-kyc Bitcoin out of the market.
TradFi and its watchdogs are building a beautiful, regulated cage for a beast that has no physical form. And they will ultimately end up by paying for the privilege.
#bitcoin
L0la L33tz
Economists at the Bank of International Settlements just proposed that *any coin* that has *ever* passed through a no-KYC wallet should be banned from regulated services.
The economists argue that their approach would enable a culture of self-policing, or “duty of care,” in which even users of non-custodial wallets would not accept no-KYC coins, report illicit activity, and engage in voluntary KYC.
View quoted note →
