Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

decrypt.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 174 posts

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

#161

Post by Texaner »

pionar wrote: post #110
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.

Come on... He's not complaining about lack of voting. Obviously everyone is abiding by formal procedures. The problem is when congress passes bills under one name while it contains a myriad of unrelated legislation. This is bad for public transparency.

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

#162

Post by nybble41 »

pionar wrote: post #110
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.

It's the infrastructure bill itself that contains the poorly considered provisions which (arguably) require miners and unhosted wallet developers to collect and report transaction information to the IRS. The competing proposed amendments to mitigate this have yet to be subjected to a vote.

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

#163

Post by vc9999 »

IMTDb wrote: post #19
vc9999 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do understand that nobody forces anyone to gamble or speculate with cryptocurrencies, right?

You do understand that everyone is forced to endure the consequences of people gambling or speculate with cryptocurrencies, right? See: Nvidia ship shortage, Bitcoin CO2 emissions, tons of ASICS destruction because miners are literally stealing electricity, .... It's the same reason why psychoactive drugs are forbidden: no one forces you to use them, but everyone has to deal with the negative consequences of their us…

I think we need to ban Christmas lights too, after all we all have to endure the consequences of people using electricy for stupid things like creating a decentralized financial system without the government stealing everyone

I guess we need a government to regulate all these things, the same way they did with the victorious war on drugs.

At least you don't have a meth store at every street corner, right, what a win

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

#164

Post by zarzavat »

dcolkitt wrote: post #145
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> point of cryptocurrency is precisely to enable bank-like services without bank-like obligations Crypto has shown some rules are unnecessary or even harmful. They should be repealed, across the board. In other cases, many cases, it's reinforced some rules' necessity. Their scope should be broadened. That's what's going on here. If the sole value of cryptocurrencies is in evading the rules, it's going to have a tough…

> This, alone, is insufficient. AML duties aren't discharged by an "I promise I'm not a money launderer or tax evader" checkbox. A Maltese company operating a server in Russia is under no obligation to follow US law for a customer who attests that he's Israeli. American KYC/AML provisions do not extend to the entire globe, and non-American entities are under no legal obligation to comply with them. It is true that th…

In fact this is how it works for real banks too. If you sign up for a bank account outside the US it's routine that they ask you if you are American, because they do not want to comply with onerous US regulations. It's a big problem for Americans who live abroad, who cannot access banking services in the country they are resident in.

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

#165

Post by cinquemb »

zarzavat wrote: post #164
dcolkitt wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This, alone, is insufficient. AML duties aren't discharged by an "I promise I'm not a money launderer or tax evader" checkbox. A Maltese company operating a server in Russia is under no obligation to follow US law for a customer who attests that he's Israeli. American KYC/AML provisions do not extend to the entire globe, and non-American entities are under no legal obligation to comply with them. It is true that th…

In fact this is how it works for real banks too. If you sign up for a bank account outside the US it's routine that they ask you if you are American, because they do not want to comply with onerous US regulations. It's a big problem for Americans who live abroad, who cannot access banking services in the country they are resident in.

It was more inconvenient in the past, but with things like (transfer)wise/paypal/stablecoins+crypto it's not that big an issue.

Easier for me to be bankless as an american abroad than to try bother to jump through all the hoops and getting a "real" bank account.

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

#166

Post by nomoreplease »

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…

Derivatives industry means one thing though, and doesn’t mean the mathematics industry. It’s not ambiguous either

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

#167

Post by ryan_lane »

cinquemb wrote: post #165
zarzavat wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact this is how it works for real banks too. If you sign up for a bank account outside the US it's routine that they ask you if you are American, because they do not want to comply with onerous US regulations. It's a big problem for Americans who live abroad, who cannot access banking services in the country they are resident in.

It was more inconvenient in the past, but with things like (transfer)wise/paypal/stablecoins+crypto it's not that big an issue. Easier for me to be bankless as an american abroad than to try bother to jump through all the hoops and getting a "real" bank account.

Have you actually tried this? I'm living abroad and I can tell you it's nearly impossible to be bankless, if you want to continue living in that place and have the government be OK with it.

At some point you need a long-term visa, which means you need a job, and that job will require you to have a (local) bank account.

Need to pay bills? You can't pay in cryptocurrency, and they expect local currency. Some may accept credit cards, but most will probably only accept debit or bank transfer. Ones that accept credit cards may only accept national cards.

If you're a US citizen and you have a bank account in the US (or credit cards), and they find out you're no longer residing in the US, they'll probably close your accounts to avoid dealing with FACTA. You'll need to setup special bank accounts, and may also need to switch your brokerage accounts.

At some point credit card companies will realize you're living somewhere else and will close your accounts, because they're intended to be used on vacation in other countries, but not long-term.

To use crypto, you need to convert it into fiat, and you can't do that without a bank account.

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

#168

Post by ryan_lane »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #148
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…

> If the answer is there should be no AML, KYC (edit: know-your-customer rules) and/or reporting by cryptocurrency companies, we have no common ground on this argument. I still don't understand this. KYC has devolved into something unreasonable and it needs to be removed from the existing system, not extended. When KYC was originally implemented, your bank was where you deposited your paycheck, paid your mortgage and…

Cryptocurrency doesn't help you buy a drink or a book. It does, however, help the rich avoid taxes and launder money.

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

#169

Post by cinquemb »

ryan_lane wrote: post #167
cinquemb wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was more inconvenient in the past, but with things like (transfer)wise/paypal/stablecoins+crypto it's not that big an issue. Easier for me to be bankless as an american abroad than to try bother to jump through all the hoops and getting a "real" bank account.

Have you actually tried this? I'm living abroad and I can tell you it's nearly impossible to be bankless, if you want to continue living in that place and have the government be OK with it. At some point you need a long-term visa, which means you need a job, and that job will require you to have a (local) bank account. Need to pay bills? You can't pay in cryptocurrency, and they expect local currency. Some may accept…

I've been living abroad for almost six years, I've been working remotely, and for the visa I've needed for where I've wanted to be I do not need a local bank account (I can renew every year or every two years which is the most they allow for foreigners anyways).

I don't use credit cards and never had. When I need fiat, I swap with "friends" locally who want crypto or who do have accounts (they "shill" crypto brokerages on television stations shows [and their ads on other show slots] in the country i'm in and there are more local users of crypto than people who actually have regular brokerage accounts to trade local stocks in the country). And there are local websites where I can actually pay for bills with crypto but I see no real need to when its relatively easy for me to get cash (cash top ups for alot of apps that can be used to pay for lots of things from bills, goods/services and food). Any brokerage accounts I've had (IB and robinhood), I've long drained the funds/liquidated assets and these days I'm really only exposed to what I can trade on a dex.

Other foreigners I've talked usually jump through some hoops to have a local "agent" to set up accounts for them that they have control over, but i cannot be bothered. Less exposure to bailoutistan, the better.

To use crypto, you need to find someone else who will swap for it, and over the past 10 years, that has increased enough for me to be ok with the work arounds. May not be ok for the way you want to live your life, but it works for me.

One day i'll be "stateless", but a lot more work to happen on that front with many others for that to come into fruition… ;)

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

#170

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ryan_lane wrote: post #168
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the answer is there should be no AML, KYC (edit: know-your-customer rules) and/or reporting by cryptocurrency companies, we have no common ground on this argument. I still don't understand this. KYC has devolved into something unreasonable and it needs to be removed from the existing system, not extended. When KYC was originally implemented, your bank was where you deposited your paycheck, paid your mortgage and…

Cryptocurrency doesn't help you buy a drink or a book. It does, however, help the rich avoid taxes and launder money.

> Cryptocurrency doesn't help you buy a drink or a book.

It is possible to buy a drink or a book with cryptocurrency. A law that requires the book or drink seller to KYC the buyer would make this difficult without putting the buyer at risk.

Of course, most sellers of drinks and books don't accept cryptocurrency. Which is why KYC needs to be removed from applying to credit cards rather than being extended to cryptocurrency.

> It does, however, help the rich avoid taxes and launder money.

Which is the thing laws can have no effect on, because they can't actually change how cryptocurrency works. The laws an exchange in the US is subject to don't apply to one in Venezuela or Russia. If you can exchange a million dollars worth of Bitcoin for dollars or gold bars anywhere in the world then it will be worth it for anyone dealing in large sums to go there when they want to cash out. That's already happened. It's the consequence of its existence and you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

All the laws do is invade the privacy of law-abiding people and put vulnerable populations at risk. Criminals don't follow laws.

Post reply on HN