Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
Clickbait headline. The underlying article lists much more reasonable restrictions:
So non-commercial transations are fine, as are crypto transactions to non-custodial wallets.
Commercial transactions -
Aaah, the kind of transaction that most transactions are?
Operated by providers
Aah, so any business which accept crypto must KYC every one of their customers. This makes accepting crypto especially burdensome, which is half the point of this legislation in the first place.
So non-commercial transations are fine, as are crypto transactions to non-custodial wallets.
Unless you're using the wallet to buy or sell something. You know, the thing people use money for.
Why does the government need to have every transaction reported to them? Crime is bad because it causes harm. If harm is being caused, that means a person or entity is causing that harm. That means there is evidence. Follow that.
Police have more surveillance and crime-detecting tools than at any point in human history. Nearly every category of crime, particularly violent crime, is on a decades-long downtrend. We all travel with GPS monitors in our pockets. We all use credit cards instead of cash. We all are recorded by CCTV 90% of the places we go. We don't need to give them more financial surveillance because 'crime'.
I'm not saying these rules are perfect, but it doesn't help if you argue against rules that don't exist.
Commercial transactions are not "all" tx, and above 3000€ are obviously not the most common tx.
I do think the crypto restriction with no lower limit is too much, and I don't get why they focus on custodial wallets, but it's again not "all" tx.
Why does the government ...
Money laundering, tax evasion and corruption are real crimes with real consequences, and knowing about the flow of money is pretty much required to be able to detect them. It's a trade-off with privacy, so imo setting some limit for anonymous payments is the right thing to do. Idk if 3000€ is perfect, but it does seem reasonable.
Police have more surveillance and crime-detecting tools ...
We need some amount of oversight and surveillance, so imo it's not good enough to just exaggerate every proposal to the extreme and reject it on those grounds. These rules are not a total crackdown on anonymous payments, but they might still be too restrictive. But you kill every discussion about that if you just make up different rules entirely, instead of arguing about the rules that were actually adopted.
more reasonable restrictions:
None of that is reasonable.
And these limits will be tied to inflation?
What's the difference between commercial and business? I thought they were synonymous.
I think they are used synonymously in this article, but business could also mean B2B transactions, so between two businesses.
That's all pretty damn reasonable...
Unless you want to buy something with cash. Once they cross the line they won't stop until cash and anonymity are gone
OP, your post is a mess.
For people who are looking for actual info:
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-seeks-cash-payment-limit-tougher-money-laundering-rules/a-68024075
https://finbold.com/anonymous-crypto-wallets-now-illegal-in-the-eu/
Or the source OP was using:
(ETA better info and links)
sorry but banning anonymous payments is pretty good for fighting corruption...
Corrupt politicians can simply ignore the law. If they didn't ignore it, they wouldn't be very corrupt.
Yes, but now there's an explicit law over which they can be prosecuted
Consumers payments deserves their privacy, but business ones needs absolutely to be fully traceable.
Could it be possible to use two different yet identical interchangeable currencies, one traceable for making business only, and one untraceable for consumers retail transactions?
loosely i.e.
... I don't know there is probably still a loophole
I am pretty sure the lesser part of corruption is cash. Probably more stuff like exchanging a lucrative contract for political support.
They are not stupid. Afterall cash needs to be explained, a good contract gives you cash and the explanation.
But fighting corruption is not a goal I'm ready to pay any prize for.
This doesn't seem that much worse than American rules that have already been in place for a long, long time.
As it is, large payments or withdrawals must be reported to federal agencies, anything over $10k. This applies to cash transactions as well and the forms the IRS requires you to fill in a $10k+ cash transaction can be found here.
The biggest difference would be the impact on cash transactions and crypto transactions in the EU.
I'm pro-privacy, but a lot more crypto facilitates crime than not, so I don't really know why people would be shocked that governments would attack crypto specifically here (literally almost all ransomware uses crypto). Looks like way more of a crackdown on crypto than cash, but maybe that's just me. (On top of the fact that a lot of crypto isn't privacy-oriented. Looking at you, Bitcoin)
Related: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/venmo-paypal-zelle-must-report-600-transactions-irs-rcna11260
Two years ago USA put in rules for commercial digital transfers over $600 to be reported. Just pointing out that the EU's rules don't seem particularly draconian when weighed against already existing rules elsewhere.
This doesn't seem that much worse than American rules that have already been in place for a long, long time.
Do you really want to be like the US, though? I think maybe that's not a great idea. (Source: am from US)
Just because one country has it doesn't mean another should adopt it
And the USA system is bullshit and I'm against it.
Here in Germany Cash payments for houses are a great way of laundering money for the mafia. Similar roles have als been proposed a while ago
Still not a good enough reason to reduce the privacy and freedom of any citizen. I don't care if the mob uses cash, let the police track the serial numbers of their cash if they catch them doing crimes or whatever. The mob isn't my problem, but losing freedom is bad for every citizen.
This thread is a dumpster fire. Can someone explain to me why i should be concerned about the tracking of payments that as an average person will not happen outside of buying huge stuff like a car? While no one is forced to answer me i would like you to refrain from vague statements like "this is attacking your privacy", because i am interested in how. If you think its obvious feel free to ignore.
I think the biggest point that i could see being a problem is the crypto stuff because i once made a anonymous donation via monero (that because i was concerned but the target needed privacy). It was about 30€ or something. Would that be illegal under the new guidelines? And if so, why would i care, since it is supposed to be anonymous.
Anonymity is important for various reasons. You can't predict everything bad a government will try to do to stifle freedom that a person may want to avoid. Off the top of my head, I could see someone trying to pay for an abortion or something like that in a southern state where it's illegal, for health reasons to save their own life.
I think this is actually a very good example, thank you.
People from europe sometimes come a long as assholes ("wE aRe NoT iN tHe ShItTy UsA") while ignoring that political stability is not guaranteed. Neither is democracy. Sitting here germany i look very nervously at the many countries shifting to the right and getting more authoritarian.
I pray to all gods that the times we live in wont be very interesting for historians to come...
I think that's a big reason I'm so pro-privacy. I'm sure if the US weren't a couple steps ahead of you guys towards fascism, I'd prioritize other things, too. Hopefully you all can stop the march towards the right of your government before it gets worse.
To me the problem is that you wouldn't be able to buy a car anonymously anymore, while it leaves the really rich pretty much untouched.
Art is a well known angle for money laundering or giving someone a huge sum of money pretty much without any regulation. Contracts for construction or even consulting are another way.
I don't have access to this kind of playground - chances are, you neither. But the people supposedly targeted by this kind of law (corrupt politicians, organised crime, ...), do have access to these things and are therefore not impacted.
I use Monero for donations too on a regular basis. From what I understand, the people accepting donations would no longer be allowed to sell them to professional platforms (silly as those are the ones KYCing).
Anybody who defends these actions by the EU is a poopy face
It's OK to be an outlaw.
I think people should create new and stronger communities to fight stuff like that
Topics, groups, etc, where people discuss and organize system fighting
Grab #Monero
Yeah, lose all your money so you don't have to worry about it being surveilled!
So that you can't sell later ?
that nostr link doesn't load for me but this is the url that the post in the screenshot is ultimately linking to: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-cash-cap-and-ban-on-anonymous-crypto-payments-results-in-financial-paternalism/
all Im thinking of is how payment processors have been acting as legislators lately to outlaw porn.
Thanks, US puritanism.
Wtfff
This feels like satire
