
New EU Proposals Seek to End Anonymous Bitcoin Trading - 3eto
https://news.bitcoin.com/eu-end-anonymous-bitcoin/
======
fdsaaf
This proposal is moot. Whether or not it's a good idea, the EU is technically
unable to effectively regulate bitcoin. Sure, you can place rules on
exchanges, but since anyone with bitcoin can send it to any other person,
identified only by one of an infinite number of wallet IDs, the EU will never
be able to stop peer-to-peer bitcoin sales.

~~~
kybernetikos
Just because it's impossible to effectively regulate in all circumstances
doesn't mean that it cannot be effectively regulated in many or most
circumstances.

You can compare this to most laws - people have the capability to break the
law, but sufficient enforcement reduces the incentives to do so to the extent
that for many classes of crime the number of people who commit them is pretty
small.

In particular, if all businesses dealing with bitcoins are required to KYC and
large transfers are tracked and prosecuted where possible, then there probably
would not be a huge amount of anonymous transfer.

~~~
ultramancool
> In particular, if all businesses dealing with bitcoins are required to KYC
> and large transfers are tracked and prosecuted where possible, then there
> probably would not be a huge amount of anonymous transfer.

Or, more likely, a huge number of bitcoin businesses will go where these laws
don't exist and interact with other services to get in.

I've managed to avoid any exchange that follows KYC practices with no issue so
far.

~~~
kybernetikos
> I've managed to avoid any exchange that follows KYC practices with no issue
> so far.

That's because no-one has made a serious effort to regulate this so far. I'm
not arguing that there wouldn't be grey market bitcoin exchanges operating on
a pirate-bay like basis, just that a serious attempt at regulating would have
a serious effect on how bitcoin is used.

This is even leaving aside ideas where a government could declare particular
bitcoins to have been involved in illegal trading and claim the right to
confiscate them from anyone under their jurisdiction.

I imagine that this would take the same form as money laundering regulation,
which while not perfect still has a massive effect on how easy it is to
launder money.

~~~
ultramancool
> That's because no-one has made a serious effort to regulate this so far.

Some places certainly have, it's just that you'd basically need a global
effort between many countries to do so to have any real effect. Until then
most of these regulations are just a joke.

~~~
sseveran
While there is a bit of truth to that bitcoin will inevitably need to interact
with the real world, so it needs to be convertible into other currencies. This
will in the end require interaction with regulated institutions. If this were
to be implemented at the bank level it would become difficult (not impossible)
to get around. The way the US went after poker sites will probably be the
model. While it was not impossible for US citizens to play online poker there
were enough barriers that most opted not to.

------
lukasm
Wonder how long it will take before they realize that current tax system won't
last in the long run. Right now only rich have the resources to offshore the
profits, but technology will drive the cost down.

~~~
matt4077
They've done a pretty good job of closing offshore havens.

~~~
threeseed
And they don't even need to close them. They can just request that data be
shared with other countries for the purpose of identifying tax avoidance.

This idea that the future will consist of everyone using tax havens is
ridiculous. Most ordinary people are scared of the taxation impacts of using
them (and rightly so).

------
the_mitsuhiko
I welcome this. It's ridiculous that we have strict regulation on other
monetary instruments but for some reason not for crypto currencies.

~~~
simonswords82
The only reason the EU haven't already got regulation in place is because BTC
popped up out of nowhere in a relatively short space of time and regulation
takes time to implement.

That to one side - why do you want strict regulation on cryptos? What are your
concerns?

------
youngButEager
Good.

Bitcoin has been around for YEARS. It is not going to gain broad acceptance.

Bitcoin right now is like the stock market before the Securities and Exchange
Commission was created in 1934, due to the fallout from all the fraud that led
to the Great Depression.

A regulated currency market has both pros and cons; no question about it. But
consider this:

\- A decree comes down: "From this point forward, bitcoin users can no longer
use any other currency. All transactions, savings accounts, etc. will have to
be bitcoin-based."

Assume, hypothetically, that this could be enforced.

Would you agree to stop using any non-bitcoin store of value?

If you say "no, I'd still want to be able to use non-bitcoin currencies"

.....then you need to take a look at that. Because it proves that bitcoin
fails to perform some type of monetary function for you.

------
benten10
Having read all the comments below, it appears to me that people most
fervently pro-bitcoin are the kind of people who convince people towards the
other directions with their arguments. Whatever merits cryptocurrency might
have, "we need no goddamn taxes or governmetn" is likely NOT bound to convince
people FOR bitcoin etc.

------
batrat
I am still trying to find legitimate reason why someone will want anonymous
pay. Bitcoin is almost always associated with underground markets, ransomware,
money laundering, etc.

Can someone tell me a legitimate reason why I need anonymous cryptocurrency?
Or what is used for?

~~~
lettergram
Yes, here are four reasons that only took a minute of contemplation:

(1) Because not all masters are benevolent

(2) Because it removes the possibility of charge backs

(3) Because not everyone enjoys being monitored by companies and/or
governments (foreign or otherwise)

(4) Underground markets are only "underground" because of laws. If a society
outlaws birth control and abortions, but a women wants an abortion she
probably wants an alternative (I.e. something an underground market with
provide). An anonymous crypocurrancy (or cash) is the easiest way to do this.
If it's not a crypocurrancy or cash, they can always trade goods. So in all
honesty, there's no way to stop it.

There may even be other reasons, but it seems pretty obvious it can inherently
good to have.

~~~
retube
> Because not everyone enjoys being monitored by companies and/or governments
> (foreign or otherwise)

So the solution to that is publishing all your transactions to a public
ledger?

(yes I know there are "tumblers" etc, but these come with operational and
practical issues)

~~~
woodman
Keep in mind the amount of monetization that occurs around purchase data in
the present system. The ease with which you can associate transactions to real
identities isn't even comparable.

~~~
threeseed
What monetisation ?

The bank isn't authorised to provide that information to third parties.

~~~
woodman
Are you confusing the spirit of the law with the letter of the law? Or do you
really think that banks aren't selling your transaction data?

[http://www.cardlytics.com/technology/](http://www.cardlytics.com/technology/)

Despite the "firewall" between the bank and the marketers, information is
being sold - it just requires an extra step on the part of the marketers
(leaving the banks legally in the clear).

