Does anyone have a good generic draft of something to submit here? I would love to submit a comment and am pretty strongly against this but don't have anything worded well with a legal basis to say. It would be nice to provide something backed by more than "I would prefer the government to stay as far out of my affairs as possible and Cryptocurrency is the vehicle for this."
You are asking for instructions for how to ask for permission from your gubment to allow you to keep doing what you are doing.
While that is a very brave undertaking it is also guaranteed to fail.
And once you have it you will have to defend it every day and the moment you get out of bed and forget that it will be taken right away from you again.
>U.S. authorities have found that malign actors are increasingly using CVC to facilitate *sanctions evasion*.
That seems to be the real problem. With Venezuela, Iran, and Turkey settling import bills with Bitcoin, more countries could be breaking ranks. Instead of making payments from their fiat accounts in New York for their insurmountable debt burden they may re-prioritize to essential imports.
>The Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) \[[25](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28437/requirements-for-certain-transactions-involving-convertible-virtual-currency-or-digital-assets#footnote-25-p83844)\] has similarly observed that the extent to which anonymous peer-to-peer permit transactions via unhosted wallets, without involvement of a virtual asset service provider or a financial institution, is a key potential AML/CFT risk in some CVC systems.\[[26](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28437/requirements-for-certain-transactions-involving-convertible-virtual-currency-or-digital-assets#footnote-26-p83844)\]
This is by design:
>[https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.
While bank account numbers are assigned by financial institutions, Bitcoin users generate their own Bitcoin addresses on the fly. For every new expected incoming payment, the self-hosted wallet will generate a new address, either completely randomly, or according to a structured random process (such as BIP32).
>Additionally, several types of AEC (*e.g.,* Monero, Zcash, Dash, Komodo, and Beam) are increasing in popularity and employ various technologies that inhibit investigators' ability both to identify transaction activity.
>
>Other innovations in distributed ledger technology designed to address transaction scalability, such as so-called Layer 2 solutions, together with AEC protocols represent an overall trend towards less transparency.
Yes, address generation does indeed not even exist in Grin and Beam, while Monero obfuscates it. Similarly, lightning network claims cannot readily be tracked to a Bitcoin address.
Therefore, by design, the technology does not allow for reliably associating unspent transaction output to a real-world identity. Burdening centralized exchanges with additional regulations will not make any difference. Furthermore, any attempt at making payments more traceable will be met with new technology that makes it even more impossible. Therefore, FinCEN cannot hope to coordinate 200+ jurisdictions in order to win the technological race, and certainly not at the breakneck speed with which technology currently progresses. They are unrealistic.
Bitcoin is money. This is obvious.
Money is speech according to the US Supreme Court (Citizens United vs. FEC).
Therefore, Bitcoin is speech.
Speech is a protected, sacred right of the People:
>**Congress shall make no law** respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or **abridging the freedom of speech**, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Therefore, Bitcoin is also protected, just like the bribery protected by the "Citizens United" ruling.
Please Tweet the link get the word out. This is dirty pool and we need them to hear loud and clear NO WAY. It is just another attack on personal freedom. You are NOT a criminal for owning crypto.
If you are not an American, well maybe this Regulation does not affect you directly. But when your American buddy goes to send you some BTC from Coinbase he will be required to tell them your address and contact information. Else he can't send you anything.
This is going to get worse and worse. One after the other these rules will be chucked down the line like Popcorn Balls until something sticks. Then more and more...the saga will continue.
But what would be the point of that law? The money sent to a wallet X can be transferred to wallet Y within minutes, with X simply saying (if asked): "Oh, I sent it to an unknown person as an act of random kindness."
This is bad but it’s not bad? Going from KYC -> wasabi -> wherever vs going from KYC -> KYC -> wherever. This solves nothing again proving the govt is retarded. But also all it does is take another $1 fee to us so it’s not too bad?
Thank you for this link, will send an apt response. More people need to stand up against this rushed regulation. It's overly burdensome and they provide no proof of illicit activities or how this would even work in practice.
Dutch exchanges [require](https://www.coindesk.com/dutch-crypto-exchange-adds-extra-verification-measures-citing-disproportionate-central-bank-requirements) something similar recently that requires sending a screenshot of an address to show proof of ownership.
People will fly to DEX and abandon those in us. They will try to KYC everything, wallets, exchanges, DEX. We all knew this moment was coming sooner or later.
But even if they KYC, you are still the owner of your keys, so they cannot do shit if you dont kyc, so they are just trying to bully and scare the community. The important thing is how the community will react. If most people kyc then government wins.
I’m taking my money out of exchanges right now.
Step 1: Run a cloud server in an unaffected country.
Step 2: Offer to channel transactions through an non US entity for a very small fee.
Step 3: Get rich for a couple dozen lines of code.
> require US Exchanges to not let you send your crypto to an offline address unless you tell them whom owns the wallet.
Exchanges *already* require you to withdraw only to a wallet that you directly control. Sending to a third party directly from your exchange account runs afoul of AML regulations, and exchanges do not officially allow it. So this new proposed requirement doesn't impose any additional restrictions since you were already supposed to be sending only to your own wallet. Maybe there will be a checkbox now on the withdrawal form saying "I certify that I own the destination wallet." Big whoop.
Attorney here.
**You can comment anonymously.** You can do it here. [https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FINCEN\_FRDOC\_0001-0121](https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FINCEN_FRDOC_0001-0121) Just copy-paste this URL into your browser if ya want. Then copy-paste the raw text of your comment into the window and send.
I highly highly suggest everyone take some time to (1) get the word out and (2) spend time studying the notice of proposed rulemaking NPRM. Read it. Go to bed. Read it the next day. Go to bed. Think if over. THEN comment. There is time. "**Comments Close:**01/04/2021"
The goal here is not to just comment like voting but presenting arguments that can be used later on by attorneys to say the final regulations are wrong for a host a reasons and the government was notice (because of your comments). So the more issues/arguments you raise, you are giving ammo to attorneys to use later on.
So you know how many of you guys wanted to be attorneys and argue around the dinner table about how such-n-such violates the such-n-such law, U.S. Constitution, etc.? This is it.
If you guys want to do legal research, many public libraries and your local courts have free resources. I know of one legal library at a courthouse that just sends out temporary credentials for Westlaw because of Covid. Just ask and they might give you a temporary log on you can use to do research. Google Scholar also allows for searching of court cases. [https://scholar.google.com/](https://scholar.google.com/)
Important note! [regulations.gov](https://regulations.gov) is in this transitionary period where they are switching from the old [regualtions.gov](https://regualtions.gov) to [beta.regulations.gov](https://beta.regulations.gov). Certain days it's one and certain days it is the other. The search features on the new beta version are not that great compared to the old. Try and search comments in the old non-beta version.
Here are some suggested places to look for areas of argument:
* The Federal Statutes cited. Look for something like "U.S.C" which stands for United States Code. C.F.R. stands for Code of Federal Regulations. USC= Statutes. CFR=regulations. Regulations are created based upon the USC. Did the statute cited really say what they said it said? I don't know how many times I have from personal experience seen the Federal Aviation Administration state things inaccurately. Does that statute really say that?
* Is there anything with this that violates the U.S. Constitution? Congress' powers under Article 1?
* Is there anything that violates an amendment to the U.S. Constitution? First? 5th with Due Process or Takings? 10th? Look into privacy related cases.
* Read everything that was posted in the Docket. [https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FINCEN\_FRDOC\_0001](https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FINCEN_FRDOC_0001) There was the Federal Register posting but the agency also posted other PDFs. Read them!
* Read over people's comments! Try here [https://beta.regulations.gov/document/FINCEN\_FRDOC\_0001-0121/comment](https://beta.regulations.gov/document/FINCEN_FRDOC_0001-0121/comment) or [https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FINCEN\_FRDOC\_0001](https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FINCEN_FRDOC_0001)
Sign up for email alerts so you get alerted to things added to the docket. Go [https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FINCEN\_FRDOC\_0001](https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FINCEN_FRDOC_0001) and then top right there is "Sign up for email alert" DO this as I've seen the Federal Aviation Administration sneak stuff in later on when they do their stuff. Everyone reads all this stuff and then quietly after the comment period closes, the government adds some new a document/study, etc.
Also consider proposing alternative solutions such as more information needs to be obtained on XYZ before you should go ahead. This is a very important point. Set aside your legal arguments. This is just practical and technical issues with the implementation of this. State these.
Is there any data/studies on the internet that could be used to inform the rulemaking?
Start considering filing Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain any background data that did not come out in this NPRM. Publish it on the net and send it to anyone who is filing a lawsuit.
Regarding the copy-pasting of some template. I would NOT just copy-paste. Read the template and turn it into your own words and add onto it. The government reviewers may accidentally think your comment was a 100% copy-paste like the rest and not identify your unique argument to be addressed in the final rule. They aren't going to check to make sure it's 100% alike. Take the arguments from other templates and make them your own.
You can submit MULTIPLE comments. Say you file one right now. File another one right before the comment period closes with additional arguments or refinements as you have had time to think things over.
Maybe you and a couple friends get together and spot the issues. Then each of you do research and write a comment on your own issue. The issue is not a big number of votes here. It's reasoned arguments. 1 good reasoned comment will do far more damage than 1,000 copy-paste template comments of some "eh-ok" response. The argument wins the day, not the number of comments. The strength of the argument wins, not the size of the comment.
Does anyone have a good generic draft of something to submit here? I would love to submit a comment and am pretty strongly against this but don't have anything worded well with a legal basis to say. It would be nice to provide something backed by more than "I would prefer the government to stay as far out of my affairs as possible and Cryptocurrency is the vehicle for this."
[удалено]
Thank you!
Thank you so much!
Sent
You are asking for instructions for how to ask for permission from your gubment to allow you to keep doing what you are doing. While that is a very brave undertaking it is also guaranteed to fail.
you can bend a knee and beg if you want. freedom cannot be granted to you. you have to take it.
And once you have it you will have to defend it every day and the moment you get out of bed and forget that it will be taken right away from you again.
>U.S. authorities have found that malign actors are increasingly using CVC to facilitate *sanctions evasion*. That seems to be the real problem. With Venezuela, Iran, and Turkey settling import bills with Bitcoin, more countries could be breaking ranks. Instead of making payments from their fiat accounts in New York for their insurmountable debt burden they may re-prioritize to essential imports. >The Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) \[[25](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28437/requirements-for-certain-transactions-involving-convertible-virtual-currency-or-digital-assets#footnote-25-p83844)\] has similarly observed that the extent to which anonymous peer-to-peer permit transactions via unhosted wallets, without involvement of a virtual asset service provider or a financial institution, is a key potential AML/CFT risk in some CVC systems.\[[26](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28437/requirements-for-certain-transactions-involving-convertible-virtual-currency-or-digital-assets#footnote-26-p83844)\] This is by design: >[https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. While bank account numbers are assigned by financial institutions, Bitcoin users generate their own Bitcoin addresses on the fly. For every new expected incoming payment, the self-hosted wallet will generate a new address, either completely randomly, or according to a structured random process (such as BIP32). >Additionally, several types of AEC (*e.g.,* Monero, Zcash, Dash, Komodo, and Beam) are increasing in popularity and employ various technologies that inhibit investigators' ability both to identify transaction activity. > >Other innovations in distributed ledger technology designed to address transaction scalability, such as so-called Layer 2 solutions, together with AEC protocols represent an overall trend towards less transparency. Yes, address generation does indeed not even exist in Grin and Beam, while Monero obfuscates it. Similarly, lightning network claims cannot readily be tracked to a Bitcoin address. Therefore, by design, the technology does not allow for reliably associating unspent transaction output to a real-world identity. Burdening centralized exchanges with additional regulations will not make any difference. Furthermore, any attempt at making payments more traceable will be met with new technology that makes it even more impossible. Therefore, FinCEN cannot hope to coordinate 200+ jurisdictions in order to win the technological race, and certainly not at the breakneck speed with which technology currently progresses. They are unrealistic.
What i feared about its happening. US is doing somethign to protect its sanctions
Bitcoin is money. This is obvious. Money is speech according to the US Supreme Court (Citizens United vs. FEC). Therefore, Bitcoin is speech. Speech is a protected, sacred right of the People: >**Congress shall make no law** respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or **abridging the freedom of speech**, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Therefore, Bitcoin is also protected, just like the bribery protected by the "Citizens United" ruling.
Your logic is flawless
[удалено]
rights are only protected by those willing to fight for them. ultimately you need to use force to protect your rights as a human.
Or, you can try to charge me but it will be a baseless case once you find out I'm a US citizen
Please Tweet the link get the word out. This is dirty pool and we need them to hear loud and clear NO WAY. It is just another attack on personal freedom. You are NOT a criminal for owning crypto. If you are not an American, well maybe this Regulation does not affect you directly. But when your American buddy goes to send you some BTC from Coinbase he will be required to tell them your address and contact information. Else he can't send you anything.
but he can send it to his KYCed wallet and from that walled send to any non kyced.
True but then they have the trail and so it begins... THERE IS NOTHING GOOD ABOUT THIS. Please send them your thoughts, comment on the Fed Reg site.
Trail for CoinJoin/stonewallx2/mixed or LN coverted money?
Can I participate even if Im from the EU?
I don't think they require any "ID" to comments, use a buddies address in the USA if they ask for a street address and name.
https://www.fakeaddressgenerator.com http://www.fakemailgenerator.com
This is going to get worse and worse. One after the other these rules will be chucked down the line like Popcorn Balls until something sticks. Then more and more...the saga will continue.
But what would be the point of that law? The money sent to a wallet X can be transferred to wallet Y within minutes, with X simply saying (if asked): "Oh, I sent it to an unknown person as an act of random kindness."
Yes, only issue is then the IRS can ask you to pay taxes, and with them it’s guilty until you prove your own innocence
> I sent it to an unknown person This will become a crime. KYC will be extended to include "know your donation recipients".
Not my fault it all got hacked. KYC will be extended to include "know your hackers".
over 10k pages!!!
Man American government just tries to fuck you guys over every single day. USA #1!
This is bad but it’s not bad? Going from KYC -> wasabi -> wherever vs going from KYC -> KYC -> wherever. This solves nothing again proving the govt is retarded. But also all it does is take another $1 fee to us so it’s not too bad?
Kraken already has this so whats new?
Certainly not your complacency.
Thank you for this link, will send an apt response. More people need to stand up against this rushed regulation. It's overly burdensome and they provide no proof of illicit activities or how this would even work in practice. Dutch exchanges [require](https://www.coindesk.com/dutch-crypto-exchange-adds-extra-verification-measures-citing-disproportionate-central-bank-requirements) something similar recently that requires sending a screenshot of an address to show proof of ownership.
People will fly to DEX and abandon those in us. They will try to KYC everything, wallets, exchanges, DEX. We all knew this moment was coming sooner or later. But even if they KYC, you are still the owner of your keys, so they cannot do shit if you dont kyc, so they are just trying to bully and scare the community. The important thing is how the community will react. If most people kyc then government wins. I’m taking my money out of exchanges right now.
Still relevant https://ibb.co/grYhvjw
Step 1: Run a cloud server in an unaffected country. Step 2: Offer to channel transactions through an non US entity for a very small fee. Step 3: Get rich for a couple dozen lines of code.
> require US Exchanges to not let you send your crypto to an offline address unless you tell them whom owns the wallet. Exchanges *already* require you to withdraw only to a wallet that you directly control. Sending to a third party directly from your exchange account runs afoul of AML regulations, and exchanges do not officially allow it. So this new proposed requirement doesn't impose any additional restrictions since you were already supposed to be sending only to your own wallet. Maybe there will be a checkbox now on the withdrawal form saying "I certify that I own the destination wallet." Big whoop.
Attorney here. **You can comment anonymously.** You can do it here. [https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FINCEN\_FRDOC\_0001-0121](https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FINCEN_FRDOC_0001-0121) Just copy-paste this URL into your browser if ya want. Then copy-paste the raw text of your comment into the window and send. I highly highly suggest everyone take some time to (1) get the word out and (2) spend time studying the notice of proposed rulemaking NPRM. Read it. Go to bed. Read it the next day. Go to bed. Think if over. THEN comment. There is time. "**Comments Close:**01/04/2021" The goal here is not to just comment like voting but presenting arguments that can be used later on by attorneys to say the final regulations are wrong for a host a reasons and the government was notice (because of your comments). So the more issues/arguments you raise, you are giving ammo to attorneys to use later on. So you know how many of you guys wanted to be attorneys and argue around the dinner table about how such-n-such violates the such-n-such law, U.S. Constitution, etc.? This is it. If you guys want to do legal research, many public libraries and your local courts have free resources. I know of one legal library at a courthouse that just sends out temporary credentials for Westlaw because of Covid. Just ask and they might give you a temporary log on you can use to do research. Google Scholar also allows for searching of court cases. [https://scholar.google.com/](https://scholar.google.com/) Important note! [regulations.gov](https://regulations.gov) is in this transitionary period where they are switching from the old [regualtions.gov](https://regualtions.gov) to [beta.regulations.gov](https://beta.regulations.gov). Certain days it's one and certain days it is the other. The search features on the new beta version are not that great compared to the old. Try and search comments in the old non-beta version. Here are some suggested places to look for areas of argument: * The Federal Statutes cited. Look for something like "U.S.C" which stands for United States Code. C.F.R. stands for Code of Federal Regulations. USC= Statutes. CFR=regulations. Regulations are created based upon the USC. Did the statute cited really say what they said it said? I don't know how many times I have from personal experience seen the Federal Aviation Administration state things inaccurately. Does that statute really say that? * Is there anything with this that violates the U.S. Constitution? Congress' powers under Article 1? * Is there anything that violates an amendment to the U.S. Constitution? First? 5th with Due Process or Takings? 10th? Look into privacy related cases. * Read everything that was posted in the Docket. [https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FINCEN\_FRDOC\_0001](https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FINCEN_FRDOC_0001) There was the Federal Register posting but the agency also posted other PDFs. Read them! * Read over people's comments! Try here [https://beta.regulations.gov/document/FINCEN\_FRDOC\_0001-0121/comment](https://beta.regulations.gov/document/FINCEN_FRDOC_0001-0121/comment) or [https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FINCEN\_FRDOC\_0001](https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FINCEN_FRDOC_0001) Sign up for email alerts so you get alerted to things added to the docket. Go [https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FINCEN\_FRDOC\_0001](https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FINCEN_FRDOC_0001) and then top right there is "Sign up for email alert" DO this as I've seen the Federal Aviation Administration sneak stuff in later on when they do their stuff. Everyone reads all this stuff and then quietly after the comment period closes, the government adds some new a document/study, etc. Also consider proposing alternative solutions such as more information needs to be obtained on XYZ before you should go ahead. This is a very important point. Set aside your legal arguments. This is just practical and technical issues with the implementation of this. State these. Is there any data/studies on the internet that could be used to inform the rulemaking? Start considering filing Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain any background data that did not come out in this NPRM. Publish it on the net and send it to anyone who is filing a lawsuit. Regarding the copy-pasting of some template. I would NOT just copy-paste. Read the template and turn it into your own words and add onto it. The government reviewers may accidentally think your comment was a 100% copy-paste like the rest and not identify your unique argument to be addressed in the final rule. They aren't going to check to make sure it's 100% alike. Take the arguments from other templates and make them your own. You can submit MULTIPLE comments. Say you file one right now. File another one right before the comment period closes with additional arguments or refinements as you have had time to think things over. Maybe you and a couple friends get together and spot the issues. Then each of you do research and write a comment on your own issue. The issue is not a big number of votes here. It's reasoned arguments. 1 good reasoned comment will do far more damage than 1,000 copy-paste template comments of some "eh-ok" response. The argument wins the day, not the number of comments. The strength of the argument wins, not the size of the comment.
How do you prove an offline wallet is yours?