3 ms·

Why not just ban anonymous payments period then. That’s weird. Seems like this isn’t about anonymous payments at all?

by rasengan 5y ago

anononaut 5y ago
That would require first eliminating bills and coins, a task I fear isn't very far down the road.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  Nor are bills and coins nearly as anonymous as most people believe. There's a reason every Euro note and US dollar comes stamped with a serial number...
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
Bad title. It’s requiring de-anonymisation for crypto transactions. Not banning crypto.
- dang 5y ago
  We've changed the title to one that uses representative language from the first paragraph. Submitted title was "EU wants to completely ban anonymous payments with cryptocurrency assets".
Jensson 5y ago
Other forms of electronic payments already aren't anonymous.
louwrentius 5y ago
As far as I know, digital payments were never anonymous, so there was nothing to ban in the first place.
dathinab 5y ago
They are already kinda banned. Once payments are above a certain amount contact information must be collected as far as I know. No bank transactions are anonymous. Smaller money payments are anonymous, but mainly due to physical limitations creating enough hassle so that it can't be abused too much (without also braking the law). As well as historic reasons. But did you ever consider that every bank note has a unique id which is tracked by banks when you pay in money (and I think) retrieve it? Furthermore the EU as since basically it's creation slowly working on de-anonymizing payments wit the purpose of fighting crime and money laundering. It's pretty much a straight forward continuation of pre-bitcoin invention policies.
miohtama 5y ago
Because if you are a politician who bans the crypto you won’t be ever elected again. Thus, you do it sneaky way.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  The disconnect with reality is quite astounding. Do you actually believe that the majority interest right now lies with crypto? 'Normal' people have heard about it but have never in their life used crypto for a payment.
  - miohtama 5y ago
    Cryptocurrency regulation is being discussed in the US, in the EU, in Russia. 50% millenials hold crypto in the US https://cointelegraph.com/news/low-millennial-financial-well-being-drives-crypto-adoption-report https://cointelegraph.com/news/low-millennial-financial-well... Top cryptocurrency users are in Vietnam, Pakistan, Ukraine and India https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/2021-global-crypto-adoption-index/ https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/2021-global-crypto-adop... While cryptocurrencies may not matter for you, or people around you that you identify as normal, based on the facts the topic matters a lot for lawmakers, politicians and large audiences you may not know.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      50% of millenials is not 50% of the voting public. And yes, regulation is being discussed, that's what this article is all about. For pretty good reasons, the whole idea that there would be a forever unregulated way to transfer vast sums of money instantly is a pipe dream at best.
      - miohtama 5y ago
        The article is about setting the reporting threshold to zero, not to some meaningful number that would prevent crime. What would be a comfortable purchase amount for you that you would like to have someone else to read your receipts? For the perspective, the FAFT recommendation is $1000.

Why not just ban anonymous payments period then. That’s weird. Seems like this isn’t about anonymous payments at all?

anononaut 5y ago

That would require first eliminating bills and coins, a task I fear isn't very far down the road.

horsawlarway 5y ago
Nor are bills and coins nearly as anonymous as most people believe. There's a reason every Euro note and US dollar comes stamped with a serial number...

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

Bad title. It’s requiring de-anonymisation for crypto transactions. Not banning crypto.

dang 5y ago
We've changed the title to one that uses representative language from the first paragraph. Submitted title was "EU wants to completely ban anonymous payments with cryptocurrency assets".

Jensson 5y ago

Other forms of electronic payments already aren't anonymous.

louwrentius 5y ago

As far as I know, digital payments were never anonymous, so there was nothing to ban in the first place.

dathinab 5y ago

They are already kinda banned. Once payments are above a certain amount contact information must be collected as far as I know. No bank transactions are anonymous. Smaller money payments are anonymous, but mainly due to physical limitations creating enough hassle so that it can't be abused too much (without also braking the law). As well as historic reasons. But did you ever consider that every bank note has a unique id which is tracked by banks when you pay in money (and I think) retrieve it? Furthermore the EU as since basically it's creation slowly working on de-anonymizing payments wit the purpose of fighting crime and money laundering. It's pretty much a straight forward continuation of pre-bitcoin invention policies.

miohtama 5y ago

Because if you are a politician who bans the crypto you won’t be ever elected again. Thus, you do it sneaky way.

jacquesm 5y ago
The disconnect with reality is quite astounding. Do you actually believe that the majority interest right now lies with crypto? 'Normal' people have heard about it but have never in their life used crypto for a payment.
- miohtama 5y ago
  Cryptocurrency regulation is being discussed in the US, in the EU, in Russia. 50% millenials hold crypto in the US https://cointelegraph.com/news/low-millennial-financial-well-being-drives-crypto-adoption-report https://cointelegraph.com/news/low-millennial-financial-well... Top cryptocurrency users are in Vietnam, Pakistan, Ukraine and India https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/2021-global-crypto-adoption-index/ https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/2021-global-crypto-adop... While cryptocurrencies may not matter for you, or people around you that you identify as normal, based on the facts the topic matters a lot for lawmakers, politicians and large audiences you may not know.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    50% of millenials is not 50% of the voting public. And yes, regulation is being discussed, that's what this article is all about. For pretty good reasons, the whole idea that there would be a forever unregulated way to transfer vast sums of money instantly is a pipe dream at best.
    - miohtama 5y ago
      The article is about setting the reporting threshold to zero, not to some meaningful number that would prevent crime. What would be a comfortable purchase amount for you that you would like to have someone else to read your receipts? For the perspective, the FAFT recommendation is $1000.