U.S. Senate Vote in Favor of Amendment That Threatens Crypto Industry • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Senate Vote in Favor of Amendment That Threatens Crypto Industry

#101

Post by knorker » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:47 PM UTC

gkfasdfasdf wrote: post #53

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31

I've been following this discussion in Washington and on Hacker News. I'm moderately anti-crypto--I don't buy the pitch but am open to being wrong and believe folks should be free to do what they want with it. I've also been struck by the proliferation of bank-like services without bank-like obligations. This stretches from fractional-reserve and maturity-transforming services like Tether to exchanges/dealers like Bi…

Since I had to Google it: AML - Anti Money Laundering KYC - Know Your Customer (i.e. ID verification)

KYC is not just ID verification. It's Know Your Customer, not "Know who you customer is". It goes deeper.

Re: U.S. Senate Vote in Favor of Amendment That Threatens Crypto Industry

#102

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

woah wrote: post #95

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31

I've been following this discussion in Washington and on Hacker News. I'm moderately anti-crypto--I don't buy the pitch but am open to being wrong and believe folks should be free to do what they want with it. I've also been struck by the proliferation of bank-like services without bank-like obligations. This stretches from fractional-reserve and maturity-transforming services like Tether to exchanges/dealers like Bi…

Your comment is completely unrelated to the matter at hand, and the article. The controversy here is about this law potentially placing reporting obligations on software developers who never have any custody of client funds. Sort of like requiring the developers of Excel to report on users of Excel using it to manage their money. > I've also been struck by the proliferation of bank-like services without bank-like obl…

> reporting obligations on software developers who never have any custody of client funds

Custody doesn't haven an agreed-upon definition when it comes to crypto. That's the nut of the challenge. If we want reporting, someone who, in a traditional setting, would not have had to report, will when it comes to cryptocurrencies.

> these centralized services that have some involvement with crypto already comply with a large number of regulations

Many do. Many don't. Tether and Binance are exemplars of pathological noncompliance.

Re: U.S. Senate Vote in Favor of Amendment That Threatens Crypto Industry

#103

Post by talideon » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #16

meepmorp wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, and I hate that people shorten cryptocurrency to crypto.

The term “derivatives” is widely used for financial derivatives like options and swaps. It’s gained such widespread adoption that it by far dwarfs the original meaning of the instantaneous rate of change in calculus. I think the simpler answer is that when a word has two meanings, one a widely used category of financial instruments and the other a narrowly defined branch of advanced mathematics, the former will almos…

The term 'derivative' is rarely ambiguous, where as 'crypto' often is. That's a key difference here.

Re: U.S. Senate Vote in Favor of Amendment That Threatens Crypto Industry

#104

Post by woodruffw » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

EGreg wrote: post #94

Fnoord wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is shameful the cryptocurrency community hijacked the term crypto. Cryptography is the very thing cryptocurrency relies on to make their technology working in the first place (if we may call it 'working', YMMV). Cryptography is used in vastly more important systems, it is much more important than cryptocurrency. I mean, without cryptography you could not even use something like Git to develop software such as Bitc…

And it goes deeper than that, including a point that woodruffw totally misses (perhaps he read only the first paragraph of what I wrote?) If you are against anonymous cryptocurrency transactions, should you not also be against all end-to-end encryption? After all, it could conceal cryptocurrency transactions! Or any of an endlessly growing amount of potentially dangerous information or assets, transferred peer to pee…

> If you are against anonymous cryptocurrency transactions, should you not also be against all end-to-end encryption? After all, it could conceal cryptocurrency transactions!

This conflation of free expression and hiding your finances would get you laughed out of any courtroom in America. I strongly support E2EE encryption and do work that directly supports a number of E2EE efforts; the idea that this requires me to support unfettered money laundering is facile.

And no, there is no such conflation on my part. Once again: cryptocurrency is, by and large a collection of scam artists and shysters. Cryptography is a branch of discrete mathematics.

Re: U.S. Senate Vote in Favor of Amendment That Threatens Crypto Industry

#105

Post by tremon » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

EGreg wrote: post #94

Fnoord wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is shameful the cryptocurrency community hijacked the term crypto. Cryptography is the very thing cryptocurrency relies on to make their technology working in the first place (if we may call it 'working', YMMV). Cryptography is used in vastly more important systems, it is much more important than cryptocurrency. I mean, without cryptography you could not even use something like Git to develop software such as Bitc…

And it goes deeper than that, including a point that woodruffw totally misses (perhaps he read only the first paragraph of what I wrote?) If you are against anonymous cryptocurrency transactions, should you not also be against all end-to-end encryption? After all, it could conceal cryptocurrency transactions! Or any of an endlessly growing amount of potentially dangerous information or assets, transferred peer to pee…

If you are against anonymous cryptocurrency transactions, should you not also be against all end-to-end encryption?

Only if you hold the belief that money is a form of free speech. Otherwise, money is just valuable property that you have to account for on your yearly/monthly tax statement to the government.

Re: U.S. Senate Vote in Favor of Amendment That Threatens Crypto Industry

#106

Post by nprz » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31

I've been following this discussion in Washington and on Hacker News. I'm moderately anti-crypto--I don't buy the pitch but am open to being wrong and believe folks should be free to do what they want with it. I've also been struck by the proliferation of bank-like services without bank-like obligations. This stretches from fractional-reserve and maturity-transforming services like Tether to exchanges/dealers like Bi…

The bill expands the definition of broker to include anyone who facilities the transfer of crypto: miners, wallet providers, smart contract devs. These people are now made responsible for collecting transaction records for the IRS. That's just not how cryptocurrency works. Miners, smart contract devs, don't know who is transacting with who. It's effectively a ban on cryptocurrency.

Re: U.S. Senate Vote in Favor of Amendment That Threatens Crypto Industry

#107

Post by knorker » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #67

woodruffw wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but the absence of AML/KYC appears to be (very explicitly) one of their points against cryptocurrencies.

From a proponent's perspective that's a big point in favour of cryptocurrencies. AML has been completely ineffective; there's absolutely zero evidence to show it's reduced drug usage or terrorism, drug gangs now are richer than ever before. What it has been effective at is making banking and achieving financial privacy way harder for the average individual. AML is like the war on drugs: it makes normal people's lives…

> From a proponent's perspective [throwing out laws] a big point in favour of cryptocurrencies.

I agree. The main goal of cryptocurrencies is crime. You may not like the laws, but that doesn't change that the main goal is crime.

And this is why it'll never be mainstream. Turns out extremely few people actually want the ultralibertarian dystopia where there is no taxes, no drug laws, no reversibility, no accountability, no economic sovereignity, etc… etc…

Coiners are like the people who say "abolish the police" and mean it literally. They want to burn down everything about society because surely out of the rubbles will rise a phoenix of perfection. Surely now that we've thrown out not just the baby with the bathwater, but also bulldozed the whole city the baby was in, the next baby will never even need a bath because it'll magically never get dirty.

Re: U.S. Senate Vote in Favor of Amendment That Threatens Crypto Industry

#108

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

nprz wrote: post #106

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31

I've been following this discussion in Washington and on Hacker News. I'm moderately anti-crypto--I don't buy the pitch but am open to being wrong and believe folks should be free to do what they want with it. I've also been struck by the proliferation of bank-like services without bank-like obligations. This stretches from fractional-reserve and maturity-transforming services like Tether to exchanges/dealers like Bi…

The bill expands the definition of broker to include anyone who facilities the transfer of crypto: miners, wallet providers, smart contract devs. These people are now made responsible for collecting transaction records for the IRS. That's just not how cryptocurrency works. Miners, smart contract devs, don't know who is transacting with who. It's effectively a ban on cryptocurrency.

[deleted]

Re: U.S. Senate Vote in Favor of Amendment That Threatens Crypto Industry

#109

Post by frankbreetz » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:57 PM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #85

alksjdalkj wrote: post #50

I don't really follow any cryptocurrency news but wasn't one of the main appeals early on that it would be independent from any governments? Specifically that it could be a currency not subject to the oversight and sanctions of the US treasury? I guess "cryptocurrency" is different from "cryptocurrency industry", but it still seems like the ecosystem as a whole should be more resilient to actions from the US governme…

Cryptocurrency is extremely resilient to government action. Regardless of what happens with this legislation, I can virtually guarantee you that crypto will still exist in a decade. Obviously the market agrees, as the major coins and tokens have reached 3 month highs while this legislation was unfolding. The reason I oppose hamfisted laws in crypto is the same reason I oppose the War on Drugs. Is the government even…

Drug laws caused the average person to be terrified of drugs. If the average person becomes as scared of crypto as they are of drugs, crypto may exist, it won't be a mainstream product.

There are no vc funded cocaine or heroine companies.

Re: U.S. Senate Vote in Favor of Amendment That Threatens Crypto Industry

#110

Post by pionar » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

onepointsixC wrote: post #78

As someone who has been sorely disappointed by much of how crypto has developed since it's early days and is somewhat a crypto pessimist, I'm extremely disturbed that something which could outright kill US Crypto is being rammed into a infrastructure spending bill. If you want to ban crypto, fine, that's a position which could be taken, debated, and discussed. But it should be done separately and given sufficient tim…

It's not being "stuffed" into a bill, it's an amendment that had voting on it. There was a competing amendment that didn't get the support this one did.