The European Commission (EC) wants to end anonymous trading in cryptocurrencies in order to help track terror groups's funding. The EC yesterday published an Action Plan to strengthen the fight against the financing of terrorism (PDF) that says criminals are quick to seek out new ways of moving money that offer lower risk of …
Because the US are one step ahead. They passed regulations last year that forces Bitcoin exchanges in the US to keep accounts and records (Coinbase is legit, for example). Those that try to avoid the regs get pursued by the authorities. And they know to be useful you have to get the BTC back to actual currency, so they look for conversion points.
What's saying greenbacks AREN'T being used to fund terrorism? Money's money to most international miscreants: whatever buys the goods. I'm just saying, in terms of the article, that in order to make Bitcoin useful, you have to change it back into real-world goods or currency, which means having to go through some agent. Trying to get it back to currency has limited options, and most of those can be watched, so the better option would be some kind of barter.
"Do you have any proof of that?"
It's a very insidious scheme. The chips automatically detect any attempts to test their existence and remain silent; also, any of the billions of commercial cash test units in use automatically switch places with a non-NFC capable counterpart from a parallel universe as soon as they detect tampering attempts. Finally, clerks willing to disclose their use of the technology (as well as any parties receiving the disclosure) get a visit from the MiB and have to choose between staying silent or disappearing without a trace. </sarcasm>
UAE, ..., USA,..., pretty much every government that hands out money to groups outside their country near as I can tell. "Freedom Fighter" vs. "Terrorist." And it's funny how money given to a worthy cause somehow ends up supporting such groups, usually indirectly (acts as a substitute for logistics usually).
Meanwhile would the EU & UK quit giving the US Advanced Big Brother training and insights? I'd deeply appreciate it. I'd rather not have to face a proctoscope while conducting financial transactions, thank you kindly.
I note that there's no mention of being able to track crims. Which sort of says a lot about how much the governments are willing to watch out for the little guy. I think they'd have less of the hassle from the informed (like IT, etc.) if they used the excuse "no evidence it used by terrorists but we would love to track and apprehend those ransomware guys."
Seems to me we're confusing two different things. Except for the one quote “The Commission will also examine whether to include virtual currency 'wallet providers'.”, it sounds like they're focusing on exchanges, which are places where people buy and sell bitcoin for conventional currency. For that reason they're easier to regulate and typically less anonymous. It doesn't sound like they're worried at this stage about the individual bitcoin transactions as described by the bitcoin.org quote.
I don't know good they think would come of regulating wallet providers when anyone can install a client and be their own, but hopefully when they "examine" that idea someone with a clue will be involved.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020