The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody
1–10 of 611 posts
Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody
#2Not a huge surprise, unfortunately.
Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody
#3[flagged]
Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody
#4[flagged]
it's another $5 wrench situation
Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody
#5I'm confused how the connection was made between "here are our guidelines for suspicious activity" and "self custody is outlawed"
Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody
#6I'm confused how the connection was made between "here are our guidelines for suspicious activity" and "self custody is outlawed"
Because just about all those practices are what reasonable users of the protocol would do, and making your transactions 'suspicious' is synonymous with all the big players refusing to deal with you. It's a way of prohibiting behaviour outside the force of law, which is even more insidious.
Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody
#7[flagged]
Unless they personally can profit from the situation anyway. Then they’ll often do perfunctory PR prosecutions while taking kickbacks. See things like prosecutions around prostitution for one usually pretty clear example.
Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody
#8I'm confused how the connection was made between "here are our guidelines for suspicious activity" and "self custody is outlawed"
It can be hard to figure out exactly what is outlawed with banking interactions. It seems a lot of the KYC/AML stuff is based on industry best practices and guidelines. There's no law you need a state ID with address to open a bank account, but when I tried to open up a bank account without an address I found it basically impossible. The bank will then cite that these practices are what they're held to as law, because the law itself is vague and relies on more nebulous customs.
So what is called "guidelines" one day becomes legally binding later with no act of congress.
Unfortunately there's a massive swath of mere guidelines and regulation that end up having legal binding. For instance, a Navy sailor was recently sent to jail for 20 years for having gun parts that were cut up the wrong way, the "wrong way" being the right way with previous mere guidance and the wrong way apparently being the fact that some time since then the guidance changed but not the law.
Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody
#9Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody
#10[flagged]