Is anyone else starting to become a bit worried? mod note in first post

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Am not, but I do work alongside compliance and regulators

They'll probably need to give a valid reason as to why they have a bank account linked to another address that cannot be changed. That's probably the crux.

I don't work on an underlying client account level, perhaps they can try their luck with other banks and see if they will accept.

Anything that raises a red flag, a bank will typically pause and make sure to follow regulations rather than just please the client. Yes that can suck for anyone stuck in administrational purgatory, and I don't know the details of the case, but that's one of the unfortunate side effects of having to be compliant with regulators and the law

As I thought document forging is the only viable solution. I think KYC should involve a mechanism whereby An Post could certify a person's address. AP could add it as another revenue stream and a lot of people could get out of the wretched KYC proof of address bind.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup I don't have an answer to that, because it's a subjectively loaded question. A better way to phrase it is: did banking work without KYC and AML, the answer is yes it did

There's nothing loaded about it - it's a perfectly straightforward question. And setting an entirely different question is not appropriate. You know well what was intended here. The question was - was there more criminality, etc. without KYC/AML? Did the world fall apart? The answer is that there is no material difference.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What is your alternative solution? (as posed by my questions)

I answered your question already. Scrap it in its entirety. If someone sees criminality in play they should report it as any ordinary decent citizen would. However, banks shouldn't be regulated into being law enforcers. That's a mistake.

cnocbui wrote: »

I seem to recall you saying you are a KYC enforcer, so I have a question:

Am not, but I do work alongside compliance and regulators

Someone living in my house has a bank account linked to another address. They can't change the address on that account - I'm sure you will probably want to ask why, but please don't, just take it as a given - that is the situation.

This person want's to open a new account with another bank, due to 'difficulties' related to the other account.

KYC is preventing them opening an account due to their inability to provide proof of address. It's my house and all bills are in my name. They have no mail coming to this address that is acceptable to a bank for KYC.

I would welcome your suggestions as to how they can open a bank account.

They'll probably need to give a valid reason as to why they have a bank account linked to another address that cannot be changed. That's probably the crux.

I don't work on an underlying client account level, perhaps they can try their luck with other banks and see if they will accept.

Anything that raises a red flag, a bank will typically pause and make sure to follow regulations rather than just please the client. Yes that can suck for anyone stuck in administrational purgatory, and I don't know the details of the case, but that's one of the unfortunate side effects of having to be compliant with regulators and the law

makeorbrake wrote: »

Let me stop you right there. I asked you did the world cave in when we didn't have KYC/AML - which is not that long ago. You have no answer for that...the reason being that it didn't!

Yup I don't have an answer to that, because it's a subjectively loaded question. A better way to phrase it is: did banking work without KYC and AML, the answer is yes it did

I don't agree with you, but I am fascinated by your opinion on this. What is your alternative solution? (as posed by my questions)

banks are not law enforcement.

Cool, you run one of the Irish banks

1. Do people require identification to sign up or can anyone from anywhere at any age open an account?

2. Are there any checks on any of the cash movements in your bank or do you completely turn a blind eye?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You didn't provide an alternative, fair enough. Here's an opportunity.

Let me stop you right there. I asked you did the world cave in when we didn't have KYC/AML - which is not that long ago. You have no answer for that...the reason being that it didn't! People have been trading value privately since the beginning of civilisation.
As regards me providing an alternative - I most certainly did - scrap it in its entirety. I live in a country with the most anal implementation of KYC/AML to be found anywhere in the world. To say that it causes friction is to understate things in the extreme. And yet laundrettes (businesses with the sole purpose of washing money) run by the cartels are to be found all over the city. KYC/AML may work in edge cases but for organised crime, it is completely ineffective. All that it does after that is cause friction for ordinary people, make them a target for fraud through identity theft, and subject them to mass surveillance.

By the way, on sanctions, there's an assumption that sanctions are right and proper when they're not! Sanctions affect ordinary people - not despots. You're happy to see KYC/AML play its part in wreaking mysery on people in this context it seems.

Furthermore, ref the scenario you go on with - banks are not law enforcement. It was a mistake from day 1 to try and make them law enforcers with this nonsense. KYC/AML doesn't scale. The largest banks are struggling with the regulatory overhead. And of course, this comes at considerable expense which has to be stealthily passed on to the consumer. It also feeds in to the reality of millions of people remaining unbanked.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To get this straight, you don't want to provide them with your passport, but you have no problem with them knowing about your personal life.. is that correct?

And let me get this straight. You're trying to justify one form of errant mass surveillance due to the existence of others? That's progressive stuff alright.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

...

I seem to recall you saying you are a KYC enforcer, so I have a question:

Someone living in my house has a bank account linked to another address. They can't change the address on that account - I'm sure you will probably want to ask why, but please don't, just take it as a given - that is the situation.

This person want's to open a new account with another bank, due to 'difficulties' related to the other account.

KYC is preventing them opening an account due to their inability to provide proof of address. It's my house and all bills are in my name. They have no mail coming to this address that is acceptable to a bank for KYC.

I would welcome your suggestions as to how they can open a bank account.

Deub

It was an interesting thread some months ago. Not anymore with these endless discussions that, in my view, don't add anything.

I am out.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Tell me, did the world cave in when we didn't have KYC/AML?

You didn't provide an alternative, fair enough. Here's an opportunity. Let's say you run a Fintech, a financial institution with customers, clients, provide loans, deposits, accounts, all that

Can anyone join your bank? kids? people with fake names?

Or would they have to provide some identification? and what would be acceptable identification, an old library card?

And let's say your bank is running, and every day someone comes in and deposits EUR 10,000 in small notes at the counter, and every week that is withdrawn to an anonymous account. 50,000 comes in every month to a TD's account from a Russian source. A Russian oligarch (who is sanctioned) has signed up and every week you see millions flowing through to shell companies. North Koreans, Venezuelan politicians, known criminals, drug dealers, Islamist groups

You don't vet any of those movements? or if you do, how do you do it?

How would you stop your institution from being infested with criminal and fraudulent elements, or is that "not your problem"?

(I suspect you may defer or deflect this to crypto or something else. You directly have an issue with AML and KYC, so would like to see your workable alternatives)

As an aside to all that. You'll gladly travel and wave your passport every time, but you are loathe to use it to open a bank account?

You are apparently reluctant to use your passport to open a bank account for "privacy reasons", but when you do open an account, the bank can see all your personal movements, they pretty much know more about your personal, private spending habits than your colleagues, friends or family..

To get this straight, you don't want to provide them with your passport, but you have no problem with them knowing about your personal life.. is that correct?

I am genuinely curious as to the logic behind your world views on this

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's absurd nonsense. Standard KYC and AML at banks is not a "geopolitical weapon" and whatever silly Alex Jones stuff you are coming up with

Don't be so disingenuous as to drop 'Alex Jones' into this. I've never mentioned the guy. In fact, the only one who has is you.

If name dropping is the game that is being played here then, both Edward Snowden and Andreas Antonopoulos recognise KYC/AML for what it is -> Mass Surveillance

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's straightforward checks, pretty standard.

Once again, it's mass surveillance.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

AML counters not just money laundering, but tax evasion, trade in counterfeit or illegal goods, corruption, market malpractice. It's been around in it's current form since the late-eighties.

And it tramples over people's data privacy in doing so. It can be used against people and is being used against people. It causes friction in business and in peoples lives, it exposes people to identity theft.

Antonopoulos puts it far better than I ever could =>

Andreas Antonopoulos wrote:

It works on a limited basis in a system that you control end to end, but the fundamental concept applying financial totalitarian surveillance on masses and masses of innocent people while exposing them to the risk of identity theft just in case you can catch a narrow segment of criminals is antithetical to the very principles of the Renaissance and enlightenment in democratic institutions.

Dohnjoe wrote:

It's not up for debate whether we have it or not, the only debate is how firm or extensive the measures themselves are

My God - what a committed statist you are! Of course it's 'up for debate'. Everything is up for debate. Nation states get stuff wrong all of the time. If stuff wasn't up for debate, then we wouldn't move forward as a society.

Dohnjoe wrote:

I have to laugh, I've literally never come across anyone inside or outside finance or anywhere on the internet who is in a rage with AML of all things, it's quite extraordinary.

I will tell you what is extraordinary, Dohnjoe. Given the nature of your views, it is extraordinary that you somehow have an interest in cryptocurrency of all things. Probably the most core tenet of crypto is an assumed lack of trust. Practically all of those who involved themselves early on with crypto believed that governments can't be trusted. I come across that sentiment every day of the week in this movement.

Dohnjoe wrote:

Indeed, says the poster who can't deal with someone's else opinion (and fact) and keeps telling me to take it elsewhere

That's incorrect. I have literally stated that you're more than entitled to your opinion. However, you magically claim that your opinion is FACT and when I call you on it, you come back with this.
As regards telling you to take it elsewhere, yes - on the basis of the above, I've told you to take it elsewhere.

Dohnjoe wrote:

Yes, billions are laundered every year. It would be more if the current system wasn't in place.

Cnocbui just called you on that nonsense. You have NO data to back that up (i.e. that there would be less laundering without KYC/AML).

Dohnjoe wrote:

Most laundering is indirect (without the knowledge of the bank), but they still get fined for it, because the responsibility is up to the bank or branch itself to have the required level of compliance and checks to detect it

The serious big money laundering is being done with direct involvement - that has been proven.

Dohnjoe wrote:

Please feel free to let us know how financial institutions can combat money laundering, identify theft, fraud, tax evasion, market manipulation.. I'd genuinely like to know

Tell me, did the world cave in when we didn't have KYC/AML? You can't even cite one reference to demonstrate that there is any less of these things as a consequence of this unethical totalitarian system. Not one.

Dohnjoe wrote:

As mentioned wouldn't bet on any exchange or crypto currency that tries to operate too far outside of the law in the long run. Especially these privacy cryptos.

Indeed - and once we reach a tipping point, totalitarians can go fish! On/Off ramps won't be in any way as important as they are right now and people will have the choice of operating within the crypto ecosystem.

Dohnjoe wrote:

Here's a simple explainer for AML and KYC for anyone in the thread wondering what all this hysteria is about. Basically providing identification when signing up for a bank account.

And here's more from Antonopoulos on why it's the tool of totalitarian mass surveillance.

Andreas Antonopoulos wrote:

The idea that you will surveil and punish the innocent in order to catch one guilty person is the antithesis of democratic ideals. In fact the famous concept by Lord Black who was a senior judge in England was that it is better to let a hundred guilty people free than to punish one innocent person. That idea has been the basis since the Magna Carta of the judicial systems in Western societies. And now suddenly in the last decade and a half we’ve come up with this new concept that we surveil the innocent financially and totally in the hope of catching one guilty person and in the process we destroy the financial privacy, the freedom of association, freedom of expression

cnocbui wrote: »

I'll ask again, what evidence is there that there has been any reduction in criminal/dodgy financial activity due to KYC? Given the purported reason for it, there should be a big spike in government revenue take shortly after measures being introduced. Are you aware of any official government announcements that KYC has been a success and that their revenues are up significantly as a result?

Dunno, haven't come across any stats.

Here's a simple explainer for AML and KYC for anyone in the thread wondering what all this hysteria is about. Basically providing identification when signing up for a bank account.

https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/learn/what-aml-banking-and-how-does-it-affect-my-business

TomSweeney wrote: »

So are the get rich quick explosion days gone from BTC iyo ?

Will we ever see a rise like mid 2017-christmas 2017 again ?

I'd imagine you have not been watching the space much since then? Bitcoin is the best performing asset in 2019.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, no it's not. If you can't engage beyond that, then please don't even bother.

It's absurd nonsense. Standard KYC and AML at banks is not a "geopolitical weapon" and whatever silly Alex Jones stuff you are coming up with

It's straightforward checks, pretty standard.

Of course its a matter of opinion! Have you lost it completely?

AML counters not just money laundering, but tax evasion, trade in counterfeit or illegal goods, corruption, market malpractice. It's been around in it's current form since the late-eighties.

It's not up for debate whether we have it or not, the only debate is how firm or extensive the measures themselves are

I have to laugh, I've literally never come across anyone inside or outside finance or anywhere on the internet who is in a rage with AML of all things, it's quite extraordinary.

This just gets better and better. Are you looking for a job in Beijing or Pyonyang? We're conversing on a discussion board and our opinions are irrelevant???. Really progressive stuff. Perhaps you'd do us the courtesy then of taking yours elsewhere. I have no earthly notion as to how you've been lingering around crypto - as you clearly have NO notion of what its about at its core.

Indeed, says the poster who can't deal with someone's else opinion (and fact) and keeps telling me to take it elsewhere

Prevent money laundering my ass. Billions are laundered every single year courtesy of your beloved banking system - actively facilitated directly by them.

Yes, billions are laundered every year. It would be more if the current system wasn't in place. Most laundering is indirect (without the knowledge of the bank), but they still get fined for it, because the responsibility is up to the bank or branch itself to have the required level of compliance and checks to detect it

Other than that, law enforcement has all manner of avenues open to it in fighting crime. Let them get on with it (without trampling over peoples data privacy).

Please feel free to let us know how financial institutions can combat money laundering, identify theft, fraud, tax evasion, market manipulation..

I'd genuinely like to know

Crypto exchanges are centralised - there's no revelation here in what you say. However, when this (crypto) grows to the tipping point, you and your fellow proponents of KYC/AML can go fish - because many of us will simply operate within the crypto ecosystem.

As mentioned wouldn't bet on any exchange or crypto currency that tries to operate too far outside of the law in the long run. Especially these privacy cryptos.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Really silly stuff.

It's essential for banks in most countries. Regulations work by ensuring it's the bank's responsibility, they are held accountable (as they should be)

If for example, a bank doesn't screen it's customers, and a sanctioned individual opens an account - then regulators can (and will) fine the bank for direct negligence, and possibly strip it's license. Makes perfect sense.

Banks and financial institutions are essential services, and are regulated as such, they can't just flout the law as they please. KYC and AML can be expensive for them, especially the smaller banks, but without it they can be abused. Expenses, fines, fraudulent activity, criminal activity, money laundering are all ultimately passed onto the clients, so it's in everyone's best interests for those institutions to have the correct measures in place

Likewise a bank is at risk of going insolvent if it's essentially operating outside of the law.

Lol. HK is a financial hub

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. You can "argue" your personal opinion against it till you are blue in the face, it's irrelevant.

Of course if you have a better, cheaper way that financial institutions can know their clients and prevent money laundering - then share it, otherwise it's just illogical bluster

And to keep this on topic, yes, this is either in place or coming to crypto exchanges for obvious reasons

I'll ask again, what evidence is there that there has been any reduction in criminal/dodgy financial activity due to KYC? Given the purported reason for it, there should be a big spike in government revenue take shortly after measures being introduced. Are you aware of any official government announcements that KYC has been a success and that their revenues are up significantly as a result?

I don't see it at a personal level, the government just keeps relentlessly turning the tax knob up and my disposable income shrinks accordingly.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Really silly stuff.

Eh, no it's not. If you can't engage beyond that, then please don't even bother.

Other than that, I don't know how on earth you're skirting around crypto when you present as someone who is dead set against it and any of its ideals and objectives (insofar as they were set out from the outset).

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's essential for banks in most countries.

Eh, no it's not essential. Its regulation - sure. But essential it most definitely is not. The world worked just fine before we had KYC/AML.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Regulations work by ensuring it's the bank's responsibility, they are held accountable (as they should be)

Yeah, there's a pretty simple answer to that. Throw out this unsavoury nonsense once and for all.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If for example, a bank doesn't screen it's customers, and a sanctioned individual opens an account - then regulators can (and will) fine the bank for direct negligence, and possibly strip it's license. Makes perfect sense.

I - and everyone here - understand that the regulation isn't set by the banks themselves (albeit that interpretation is - but that's another days work). It doesn't make any sense as it's financial surveilance of citizens and should be dropped for good.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Banks and financial institutions are essential services, and are regulated as such, they can't just flout the law as they please.

See above (although they flout it just fine when it comes to the serious money. Us plebs down the bottom will continue to have our data privacy trodden on).

Dohnjoe wrote: »

KYC and AML can be expensive for them, especially the smaller banks,

Yup, make my point for me. Ultimately ordinary people end up shouldering that expense.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Expenses, fines, fraudulent activity, criminal activity, money laundering are all ultimately passed onto the clients, so it's in everyone's best interests for those institutions to have the correct measures in place

For the expenses, fines, etc. that you're talking about, isn't it obvious - get rid of this nonsense and there is no overhead in terms of
- untold man hours that are burnt up on this nonsense
- friction caused to consumers
- friction which has - and continues to be - a major factor in preventing take up of various fintech advances (including crypto).
- restoring peoples data privacy
- preventing rogue governments from finacially surveilling ordinary people - opening up those people to a full spectrum of abuse. Power corrupts.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Lol. HK is a financial hub

If you have absolutely nothing to counter the point, then perhaps you'd do us the service of refraining from commenting.
The Chinese administration has been using KYC data via mastercard/visa - and then by extension, the HK metro card system to target people that have the audacity to stand up against an errant government that certainly doesn't have their best interests at heart.
KYC is a worldwide scourge - your reference about financial hubs is neither here nor there in the context of this discussion.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not a matter of opinion,

Of course its a matter of opinion! Have you lost it completely? The world worked just fine before there was any such thing as KYC/AML. It will again in the future (via crypto).

Dohnjoe wrote: »

it's a matter of fact.

What on earth are you going on about. There are reasons for and reasons against. Both are a matter of fact.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You can "argue" your personal opinion against it till you are blue in the face, it's irrelevant.

This just gets better and better. Are you looking for a job in Beijing or Pyonyang? We're conversing on a discussion board and our opinions are irrelevant???. Really progressive stuff. Perhaps you'd do us the courtesy then of taking yours elsewhere. I have no earthly notion as to how you've been lingering around crypto - as you clearly have NO notion of what its about at its core.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Of course if you have a better, cheaper way that financial institutions can know their clients and prevent money laundering - then share it

Ah - a sense of humour to boot! - you're ticking all of the boxes. Prevent money laundering my ass. Billions are laundered every single year courtesy of your beloved banking system - actively facilitated directly by them. How many bankers have been jailed for that? Can you come back and tell us that seeing as you're putting yourself up there as an oracle on the subject and the rest of us have opinions that are 'irrelevant'.

Other than that, law enforcement has all manner of avenues open to it in fighting crime. Let them get on with it (without trampling over peoples data privacy).

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And to keep this on topic, yes, this is either in place or coming to crypto exchanges for obvious reasons

Crypto exchanges are centralised - there's no revelation here in what you say. However, when this (crypto) grows to the tipping point, you and your fellow proponents of KYC/AML can go fish - because many of us will simply operate within the crypto ecosystem.

makeorbrake wrote: »

I can bring up what I want Dohnjoe. Secondly, it's pertinent to bring up terrorism as 'fighting terrorism' is the main rationale provided for this abusive system which robs people of their financial privacy. KYC was racheted up post 9/11 at the behest of the yanks. They've been using it as a weapon in their geo-political nonsense - and trampling over peoples rights and civil liberties in the process.

Really silly stuff.

It's in NO WAY essential. There's an array of law enforcement approaches that can be taken that doesn't involve trampling over peoples data privacy.

It's essential for banks in most countries. Regulations work by ensuring it's the bank's responsibility, they are held accountable (as they should be)

If for example, a bank doesn't screen it's customers, and a sanctioned individual opens an account - then regulators can (and will) fine the bank for direct negligence, and possibly strip it's license. Makes perfect sense.

Banks and financial institutions are essential services, and are regulated as such, they can't just flout the law as they please. KYC and AML can be expensive for them, especially the smaller banks, but without it they can be abused. Expenses, fines, fraudulent activity, criminal activity, money laundering are all ultimately passed onto the clients, so it's in everyone's best interests for those institutions to have the correct measures in place

Likewise a bank is at risk of going insolvent if it's essentially operating outside of the law.

Ask the protesters in Hong Kong what they think of KYC/AML!

Lol. HK is a financial hub

Disclaimer: We've done this KYC/AML discussion to death already. Someone brought it back up. I'd respectfully ask you to leave it here. If you respond - I will respond and on and on it will go.

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. You can "argue" your personal opinion against it till you are blue in the face, it's irrelevant.

Of course if you have a better, cheaper way that financial institutions can know their clients and prevent money laundering - then share it, otherwise it's just illogical bluster

And to keep this on topic, yes, this is either in place or coming to crypto exchanges for obvious reasons

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not sure why you are bringing up terrorism.

I can bring up what I want Dohnjoe. Secondly, it's pertinent to bring up terrorism as 'fighting terrorism' is the main rationale provided for this abusive system which robs people of their financial privacy. KYC was racheted up post 9/11 at the behest of the yanks. They've been using it as a weapon in their geo-political nonsense - and trampling over peoples rights and civil liberties in the process.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

KYC is essential, where it was used to identify hundreds of individuals who purchased child porn.

It's in NO WAY essential. There's an array of law enforcement approaches that can be taken that doesn't involve trampling over peoples data privacy.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A bank or financial institution has to have KYC to identify who is using their accounts - they will be held accountable if e.g. sanctioned Russian individuals open accounts there. It's not an option, they can and will lose their license if they don't have it. Many crypto exchanges are doing the same (although for now it's more of a guideline than a rule)

This isn't news. Of course they're doing it. They shouldn't have to - and people should be laying into their political representatives to get it lifted (scratch that - they should be moving gently over to the crypto space).

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The road analogy is wrong and irrelevant.

It's not. There's that analogy - there's Snowden's view (put everyone in prison and you can cut down crime) - and his view is pertinent. i.e. people need to stop up and think - at what point is enough enough. They're being sold a pup - KYC / AML is a ruse.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

because it makes criminal and illegal activity easier

To Snowden's point - throw everyone in prison and you'll cut crime and illegal activity. There are all manner and means of law enforcement options. Trampling on peoples data privacy does not have to be one of them.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I've underlined this part because some don't seem to understand or grasp it

Arrogant much?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To explain. You have currency X which is traceable. You have currency Y which is exactly the same in every way, but it's totally private and untraceable. Which one will criminals, etc use?

You have a bank with KYC and a bank with no KYC, which ones will criminals, etc use?

I'll tell you who would use them. People that want to protect their privacy. Now, you propose that its ok to trample over people's right to privacy in order to pursue a few criminals - I most definitely do not!
The premise here from your mindset seems to be that all governments are inherently good. They most definitely are not! There's going to be a whole world of 5h1t to deal with for people over the coming years as the battle for data privacy will start in earnest. Ask the protesters in Hong Kong what they think of KYC/AML!

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I can't make this point any clearer

Touché

Disclaimer: We've done this KYC/AML discussion to death already. Someone brought it back up. I'd respectfully ask you to leave it here. If you respond - I will respond and on and on it will go.

cnocbui wrote: »

Do you have a link that shows how the level of criminal activity in society has declined due to KFC being sold by all banks?

KYC isn't sold, banks in most modern countries are required by law to have it. It's basic screening and due diligence. It's for legal and common sense reasons. Without it, anyone could open an account - criminals, terrorists, sanctioned individuals, people with stolen identities, known fugitives/drug dealers/etc, money launderers, known scammers

Bob24

cnocbui wrote: »

So does cash - WTF is it about this basic reality you don't get?

Physical cash is actually quite easier to track than a fully private crypto (especially in large quantities). Also, a well designed privacy crypto could move a billion dollars to the other side of the planet within a few seconds, very cheaply, with no logistics, and with no way to track the transaction. No way you could do that with cash (which at the same time shows the added value of privacy cryptos and also shows they are a separate beast and can’t be treated in the same way as cash).

cnocbui wrote: »

So does cash - WTF is it about this basic reality you don't get?

Yes, so does physical cash. But physical cash is being phased out. Its being replaced by traceable digital cash. Physical cash obviously can't be immediately regulated against because millions use it and rely on it

New private untraceable cryptos on the other hand are not being used, they are merely alternatives, no one relies on them, they can be regulated against

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You have a bank with KYC and a bank with no KYC, which ones will criminals, etc use?

I can't make this point any clearer

Do you have a link that shows how the level of criminal activity in society has declined due to KFC being sold by all banks?

The EU had a go at Apple and the cute hoors who run the Irish Mafia so Apple - who have never, ever, ever, tried to avoid 1c of tax, have shifted to using the island of Jersey.

You couldn't fail more to make your supposed point if you had help.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

because it makes criminal and illegal activity easier

So does cash - WTF is it about this basic reality you don't get? NO amount of Kentucky Fried Chicken has ever made one jot of difference to the level of criminal activity, it just leads to guac-a-mol

Never once has a Mafia Don woken up and said: Antonio - get the word out to the boys; we must have a meeting. The government have a new bucket of chicken, We have to give up that 10% of the Italian economy we control and go get real jobs, their chicken is too good. W'ere clucking finished.

cnocbui wrote: »

AIB charges for all transactions so I use cash everywhere and when I can. I am very tight-fisted. I go inside an AIB branch and use the ATM to take out the maximum amount of cash allowed - more than double the external ATM amount. I then spend that. I never use a card to pay for anything, other than online.

This crims use crypto, so ban it argument is beyond retarded. As logical as shutting down the internet because its allowed pedos to flourish like never before, Nigerian princes to send letters, and hackers to hack. There are some really dumb people around. :rolleyes:

You keep using false equivalence

To keep this simple..

Just because criminals indirectly drink water, or use roads, or breath air, or use the internet, or use money doesn't mean we need to ban those things

If they however they have a choice of 10 banks, and one of those banks has absolutely no checks, criminals will use the bank with no checks. We know this. Which is why there are mandatory rules about this now. All banks have to have checks because of this

Likewise, if there are 10 currencies, and one of those currencies is totally private/untraceable, then criminals will gravitate towards that currency

Measures would not be taken because that final currency is private, it's because by design, it's open to abuse, much more so than it's counterpart

makeorbrake wrote: »

Edward Snowden came out and said that KYC does SFA to fight terrorism. He also stated this -> “The only world in which you can foreclose on entire avenues of human activity … is a world in which everybody’s sitting in a jail cell.”
Tie that comment back to Cnocbui's analogy. There are many avenues in which crime can be fought - but getting in the way of peoples privacy and civil liberties shouldn't be one of them.

Snowden also recently called on privacy features to be enabled for Bitcoin.

Not sure why you are bringing up terrorism. As directly demonstrated in this case, KYC is essential, where it was used to identify hundreds of individuals who purchased child porn. A bank or financial institution has to have KYC to identify who is using their accounts - they will be held accountable if e.g. sanctioned Russian individuals open accounts there. It's not an option, they can and will lose their license if they don't have it. Many crypto exchanges are doing the same (although for now it's more of a guideline than a rule)

The road analogy is wrong and irrelevant. Modern digital fiat is traceable, any proposed alternative (crypto or otherwise) which is totally private and untraceable is unlikely to authorised for widespread use by regulators, financial watchdogs, governments or central banks because it makes criminal and illegal activity easier

I've underlined this part because some don't seem to understand or grasp it

To explain. You have currency X which is traceable. You have currency Y which is exactly the same in every way, but it's totally private and untraceable. Which one will criminals, etc use?

You have a bank with KYC and a bank with no KYC, which ones will criminals, etc use?

I can't make this point any clearer

AIB charges for all transactions so I use cash everywhere and when I can. I am very tight-fisted. I go inside an AIB branch and use the ATM to take out the maximum amount of cash allowed - more than double the external ATM amount. I then spend that. I never use a card to pay for anything, other than online.

This crims use crypto, so ban it argument is beyond retarded. As logical as shutting down the internet because its allowed pedos to flourish like never before, Nigerian princes to send letters, and hackers to hack. There are some really dumb people around. :rolleyes:

q85dw7osi4lebg

TomSweeney wrote: »

So are the get rich quick explosion days gone from BTC iyo ?

Will we ever see a rise like mid 2017-christmas 2017 again ?

I think personally it will 10 x to 80,000 USD within 4 years.

TomSweeney

So are the get rich quick explosion days gone from BTC iyo ?

Will we ever see a rise like mid 2017-christmas 2017 again ?

Bob24 wrote: »

Now of course no analogy is perfect and car registrations are obviously not exactly the same thing as KYC, but if we have to make car analogies this is a lot closer than a car ban would be.

Its a ban on financial privacy and with that the analogy remains intact.

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

It is the correct analogy.

No matter how you look at it, banning cars can’t be an analogy for imposing ID verification on some crypto usages. A ban is a ban and banning cars can only be an analogy for banning cryptos.

ID checks to create crypto-related accounts are more alike of the fact that while cars are allowed (as crypto accounts are in many jurisdictions), they have to be registered with the authorities and associated to a specified owner.

Now of course no analogy is perfect and car registrations are obviously not exactly the same thing as KYC, but if we have to make car analogies this is a lot closer than a car ban would be.

Bob24

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I disagree

As a technical idea it's quite good, especially it's pioneering use of blockchain and decentralisation. As a type of currency, not so much, but as a speculative asset, it's certainly a ground-breaking type of financial instrument. We're likely to see crypto based currencies (backed by the ECB, etc) at some point in the future, crypto based assets, blockchain based assets and systems and possibly some form of decentralised (global) stable-coin that can mitigate localised economic crises and crashes

Also beyond the technical aspects and at leat as important is the economics/social one: taking away the control of stores of wealth (currencies) and monetary supply from central banks and governments.

Whether one likes the idea or not, this aspect is potentially game changing. I personally see both good and bad things about this: a good thing is that FIAT currencies have been very badly managed and we seem to be in an unstoppable cycle of QE and low to negative interest rates before a possible implosion of the system - and a hard currency would force better management, but a bad thing is that taking away monetary policies from nation states is reducing their national sovereignty and thus the scope of democracy.