>> The new rules would also prohibit providing anonymous crypto-asset wallets.
> As a business/service, or in general? If the latter, then it's literally a ban on cryptography.
There are more applications of cryptography than cryptocurrency, which is why the term "crypto" for cryptocurrency was so unfortunate. It pretty much erased the prior established usages, leading to lots of confusing situations.
This could ban cryptocurrency (the tells are focusing on terms like "assets", "wallets", and using Bitcoin as an example), but it doesn't sound like it bans cryptography (if it did, tells would be "keys", "messages", etc.).
> As a business/service, or in general? If the latter, then it's literally a ban on cryptography.
There are more applications of cryptography than cryptocurrency, which is why the term "crypto" for cryptocurrency was so unfortunate. It pretty much erased the prior established usages, leading to lots of confusing situations.
This could ban cryptocurrency (the tells are focusing on terms like "assets", "wallets", and using Bitcoin as an example), but it doesn't sound like it bans cryptography (if it did, tells would be "keys", "messages", etc.).