>The new rules would also prohibit providing anonymous crypto-asset wallets.
As a business/service, or in general? If the latter, then it's literally a ban on cryptography.
As a business/service, or in general? If the latter, then it's literally a ban on cryptography.
Right, because it's generally recognized that countries have the right to protect their borders
> not sure why you can't have a rule that you can't have undeclared crypto wallets
Are you exempt from this if you don't make cross-border transactions? Would it be constitutional for the EU to make a rule that you can't have undeclared cash wallets?
> That does not ban cryptography, that just forces people to declare their wallets.
In the strict sense you're correct. However, I would counter with saying that this isn't a "ban on cryptography" in the same sense recent proposals for key escrow (eg. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/as-doj-calls-for...) isn't "a ban on cryptopgrahy". However, the end result is the same: you won't be allowed to practice cryptography unless you also give up your secrets to the government.
However, I think it's actually the current unregulated crypto currencies ecosystem that should worry people far more. Consider the shady people that operate this space and their ability to mine all kinds of data. People might be surprised how valuable and useful behavioral data of individuals can be, especially when it relates to how they behave when dealing with speculative and uncertain dynamics (like e.g. the realities of crypto currencies themselves). That's all I will say about it.
And they're almost inevitably corrupt.
see Common Reporting Standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Reporting_Standard
In any case this kind of thing will be implemented by mandating it at the exchanges where crypto is converted to/from traditional currencies, making it impossible to actually use crypto (legally) without complying.
* The wallet existing in no places
* The wallet existing in an unlimited number of places
* The wallet spontaneously replicating itself in a new location (with or without information transfer)
Certainly not a very mainstream interpretation of “location”.
That doesn't hold well if you take into account that multisig allows you to require multiple signatures for a transactions and keep the signing capabilities on multiple jurisdictions.
What does that even mean, lol?
If I put the secret key, in a private dropbox account, do I no longer have to declare the wallet to anyone?
What about if I simply memorize the password?
Its not that simple, to determine where a secret key is stored.
They work for hobbyists messing around with crypto and people who want to buy small amounts of droogs on black/grey markets, but aren't going to allow crypto to be mass adopted.
P2P marketplaces can record an exchange, sure, but how do you actually send or receive large volumes of Euros, Pounds Sterling, or Dollars without casting a "summon police" spell?
For the people that it isn't enforceable for, they're stuck either moving countries, hodling eternally, or laundering the cash they get in return for their crypto assets.
Yes, you'll be able to break the law if you turn to a hawala payment system, but I can also break the law against murder by hiring a hitman. That doesn't mean laws against murder are completely uneforceable.
> As a business/service, or in general? If the latter, then it's literally a ban on cryptography.
There are more applications of cryptography than cryptocurrency, which is why the term "crypto" for cryptocurrency was so unfortunate. It pretty much erased the prior established usages, leading to lots of confusing situations.
This could ban cryptocurrency (the tells are focusing on terms like "assets", "wallets", and using Bitcoin as an example), but it doesn't sound like it bans cryptography (if it did, tells would be "keys", "messages", etc.).