A blacklist of banks that block movements to or from Bitcoin related services
github.com
github.com
https://www.chase.co.uk/gb/en/support/crypto/
> Why don't you allow crypto asset payments?
> We've made this decision because fraudsters often use crypto assets to steal large sums of money from people. Blocking these payments is one of the ways we help keep you and your money safe.
Doesn't really seem that unreasonable, but I definitely have mixed feelings. I mean, if it's my money and I can confirm it's where I want to send it, my bank should send it, full-stop.
You could argue it's an excuse, since technically cryptocurrency competes with traditional bank transfers, but the fact is that it's actually pretty plausible and I'm not sure what this says about banking systems that it is.
Bitcoin was the proposal to become independent from banks. Everyone could be their own bank.
But then the speculators twisted the original intentions to safeguard their investments. And it basically became the banking system rebuilt in bitcoin. Like the exchanges instead of banks (the EU even has a proposal to make it illegal to keep money on private wallets), the KYC stuff so it's no longer possible to just create an account and work with it. I don't support bitcoin anymore, the idea was independence from big money but they simply took it over.
Bitcoin is not the perfect bankless system of money that you might hope. But cryptocurrency is one step closer to making that happen. With cryptocurrency, there is an option to transact digitally outside of the government. That didn't exist before.
I view bitcoin as on the same layer as TLS. The spirit of the internet was corrupted by Facebook/Google/etc, but the underlying tech still works. The spirit of bitcoin was corrupted by the exchanges and speculators, but the underlying tech still works. Both give you the power to take back some of the power that ordinary citizens have lost—if you know how to avoid the bad parts.
Broadly speaking, data privacy is legal, monetary privacy is regulated (except in small fiat amounts under cash reporting limits). FinCEN, SARs, etc for US specific examples. An unregulated, distributed transfer of value system is unable to coexist with nation state regulations and desires to control the currency. Do not pass go. Go directly to jail. OSI layers.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/tornado-cash-founders-c...
[2] https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/04/12/former-ethereum...
> An unregulated, distributed transfer of value system is unable to coexist with nation state regulations and desires to control the currency.
You mean cash? Bitcoin is no more or less illegal than cash. In either case, follow the laws, pay your taxes, and you'll be fine. I'd rather deal with the IRS directly than argue over the phone with a customer service representative from Chase.
[1]: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/seeing-like-a-bank/
As I mentioned, cash has reporting requirements above small amounts ("except in small fiat amounts under cash reporting limits") [1]. Chainalysis exists as a business to provide reporting to governments for crypto transfers [2].
[1] https://www.fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/2021...
Governments pay companies to investigate people breaking the law with both cash and bitcoin. Cash and bitcoin are both coexisting just fine with existing financial regulations.
I am only commenting to warn others, as this is absolutely not true, and you have a dangerous misunderstanding of financial regulations. You would not be told if a report was filed, to do so is illegal.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8300.pdf
> Generally, any person in a trade or business who receives more than $10,000 in cash in a single transaction or related transactions must complete a Form 8300, Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or BusinessPDF. Form 8300 is a joint form issued by the IRS and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and is used by the government to track individuals that evade taxes and those who profit from criminal activities. Although the cash reporting requirements apply to many types of businesses, auto dealerships frequently receive cash in excess of $10,000 and are required to comply with the filing requirements.
> Penalties. You may be subject to penalties if you fail to file a correct and complete Form 8300 on time and you cannot show that the failure was due to reasonable cause. You may also be subject to penalties if you fail to furnish timely a correct and complete statement to each person named in a required report. A minimum penalty of $25,000 may be imposed if the failure is due to an intentional or willful disregard of the cash reporting requirements.
> Penalties may also be imposed for causing, or attempting to cause, a trade or business to fail to file a required report; for causing, or attempting to cause, a trade or business to file a required report containing a material omission or misstatement of fact; or for structuring, or attempting to structure, transactions to avoid the reporting requirements. These violations may also be subject to criminal prosecution which, upon conviction, may result in imprisonment of up to 5 years or fines of up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for corporations or both.
So again, why is cash able to "coexist with nation state regulations and desires to control the currency", but bitcoin isn't?
It appears your argument is "I don't like the law." Good luck to you. Statute is clear on the topic. I have made my best effort attempt to educate.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-A... ("§ 1.6050I-1 Returns relating to cash in excess of $10,000 received in a trade or business.")
https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-and-regulations/ba... ("Bank Secrecy Act")
> The Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970, its amendments, and the other statutes relating to the subject matter of that Act, have come to be referred to as the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). The BSA authorizes the Department of the Treasury to impose reporting and other requirements on financial institutions and other businesses to help detect and prevent money laundering. Specifically, the regulations implementing the BSA require financial institutions to, among other things, keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments, file reports of cash transactions exceeding $10,000 (daily aggregate amount), and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an "anti-money laundering" (AML) law or jointly as “BSA/AML,” and is codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1960, 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5336, and includes notes thereto.
???
Read again:
> You mean cash? Bitcoin is no more or less illegal than cash. In either case, follow the laws, pay your taxes, and you'll be fine. I'd rather deal with the IRS directly than argue over the phone with a customer service representative from Chase.
It seems like you want to paint me as a criminal because I dared to use any currency other than USD, and then reported it on my taxes? If you're not able to engage with my questions directly instead of changing the subject, I'll assume you're not posting in HN's spirit of curiosity, and end the conversation here.
This is more true in the last couple decades than it ever has been
That would have eliminated the speculative "store of value" incentive and created a true currency.
Inflation is not a boogieman. When slow and steady and predictable its a net positive for society. It incentivizes investment and doing productive things with your money instead of holding it in non-productive gold or gold-like digital commodities.
Or just with a fixed block subsidy. A pure linear emission. That would already strongly deter speculation, as it takes a century to get supply inflation rate down to 1%.
I know, there's so much more beauty in Grin, cut through, your absolutely wonderful proof of work scheme, but the simplicity and elegance of the emission scheme was what first piqued my interest and made me realize this is no steel reinforced bridge, this is a stone pyramid.
I personally though do believe that a slow and predictable, to the point of being unchangeable, supply increase is better, but not for the reason you mentioned. I think the system is a commons, having to store and upkeep a record of everyone's wealth, and that simply storing wealth is a use case of money, and so no perpetual inflation is a subsidy of those using the money to save at the cost of those spending. People just storing wealth on a system that requires active maintenance at no cost are free riders. The inflation rate is their share of the cost to keep the system alive. So in these systems I have a preference for a linear, algorithmic perpetual emission of coins. Two of my favorite (from a technical perspective) networks that do just that are Monero and Grin.
Indeed Satoshi design would've been like that, eventually we got Chainlink to 'to know the real world value of things.'and Ampleforth used that in the design to have perfect elastic supply
I see it like the free internet.
Yes, there's all kinds of garbage built on top of the underlying foundation, most of which is spam, scams, surveillance, or centralized unfree profit extraction.
But none of that prevents me from using the underlying foundation directly, free of spam and scams. The foundation still works perfectly.
>> Chase UK is the first bank on the list
If you have an account at Chase, and Chase censors Coinbase, but Chase willingly connects with Wise and Wise connects with Coinbase, then it's easy to see how to do what you want to do with your money.
And if you value the freedom to do what you want with your own money, then only keep small balances with nanny-banks. Treat them like hot wallets and keep large balances in cold storage elsewhere.
By design cryptocurrencies make rich people richer. Either they buy more graphics-cards or disks or just steal processor power (a reminder: JavaScript in your browser can mine for others). The attempt with disk space make it even worse (Who had that idea? A drive manufacturer envy on Nvidia/AMD?). In the meanwhile electricity is wasted. And criminals love it.
There was never a chance that Bitcoin would improve anything. At least cash is anonymous and doesn’t need an internet connection.
btw.
Good news? Yes! Real time transfer (SEPA) will likely soon not cost more than regular transfer in the EU. Good banks already don’t charge that. And it is a common federated standard. It is more complicated than forcing everyone to be a customer of one bank (named PayPal) but already works well for years.
That said, I'm against a bank deciding they're uncomfortable with a very popular, secure digital asset indefinitely. Figure it out, bank. Don't be so bankey.
Yes, but…
Just Google “large withdrawal problem”
Or just read this: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/sep/12/big-cash-withd...
It depends who you are and where you are, but there’s no doubt that bank customers often have sudden, expensive, unexplained hold-ups in their attempts to withdraw. Sometimes, even for tiny amounts of very low 4 figures even. It can be terribly inconvenient.
It’s annoying, but you can ameliorate withdrawal bank hitches by advising the bank in advance of your plans. But if you don’t confirm it first, then do not expect to roll up at your bank and be handed $10,000 without hassle. Especially if you didn’t do it before.
This is NOT usually an issue of banks being frightened of a bank run, like some folks are guessing here.
It mostly is the bank’s low-level staff concern that a scam is in progress, that you are an idiot being cheated, and their fear that the bank will be liable and have to pay for your loss.
The amount of those people that want to take all of their cash out - and not pop it in another bank (which includes buying something, assets, equities, etc) - is probably close to 0.
This is a non-issue for almost everyone.
Very true. It’s almost always a non-issue (and could probably be ameliorated if you’re prepared in advance).
But, I’ll guarantee you, that one time in your life when you suddenly NEED $25,000 for emergency medical costs, or to close a critical business deal, or to pay for your wedding, or a parent’s funeral, or to help out friend or family in dire trouble?
Then, that one time, it is the biggest issue of your life. If a polite and cautious bureaucrat blocks it, then you will be angry about it forever.
And that one time is enough for one life.
You will not understand this until it happens to you.
None of these are issues for anyone with that kind of money.
There's a thing called credit - which if you have that kind of cash - you have that kind of credit.
Sorry. But you speak from a position of privilege of which you are unaware, and you clearly have no idea about how this stuff sometimes works in the real world.
I apologize for being very rude. But you have never experienced this and you are wrong. I hope you never have this misfortune to learn this from personal experience.
I apologize for my impolite manner here.
Cash isn't really a thing here anymore due to the government's extreme incompetence at guaranteeing our safety.
I just didn't insist on cash.
[1] ("Global systemically important banks")
[2] https://web3isgoinggreat.com/charts/top ("$69,522,310,172 has been lost to hacks, scams, fraud, and other disasters since January 1, 2021.")
[3] https://fortune.com/2023/03/12/all-silicon-valley-bank-depos... ("‘Systemic risk exception’ invoked to fully protect all Silicon Valley Bank depositors, Fed rolls out new backstop for banking sector")
Once it more fully built out, I can talk to my parents about moving all their assets to one of these banks.
They are already on the receiving end of scams and their bank stopped a fraudulent transfer to someone claiming to be my brother.
Last thing I want is them sending their money to some unrecoverable crypto scammer.
If you don't want to buy crypto, don't? I don't need a middle man for that.
Same thing applies here. If crypto were, on a measure, as fraudulent as it was not, then this might be heavy-handed. But as it is currently the source of more fraudulent activity, at least as it concerns these banks, than forthright activity, I'm happy for my bank to toll the cost of preventing crypto financial exchanging, for the benefit of fraud protection.
YMMV, of course. Different strokes for different folks. But, like the parent commenter, I'm happy with how my bank purports to handle crypto transactions.
I'm just trying to understand the scenario here: you are caught up in a fraud, and unknowingly you give the fraudster access to information that they are able to leverage to make fraudulent purchases in your name and the 'win' here is that they can't spend it on crypto?
It seems like there are multiple points at which to address this problem prior to how they're spending your money.
Edit: I guess a lot of the comments are talking about the scam being that you are scammed into purchasing crypto somehow, a different scenario than someone having control of your account. Still though: people have been successfully swindling over the phone for a century. Having someone buy Monero instead of a wire transfer is just procedural.
No one cares until their account gets randomly closed without recourse.
I already don’t! But I also want my parents to be safe from the modern day equivalent of tech support scam, and good to see that some banks are being proactive about it.
My bank isn't on this list, but I wouldn't mind at least getting a text or app notification asking me to confirm it in the unlikely event I ever did anything with cryptocurrency.
e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/s/X2qBxazYm6
That would be a list of banks that never - auth funds to dodgy looking overseas entities but will still lock your card for getting gas 4 counties away.
A list of banks that never did that would be meaningfully helpful. Alas, no helpful lists.
Rewriting etymology makes no sense IMHO. I kind of understand wanting to get rid of slave/master (though I’m not for it either, after all it is slaves and master when used in IT; we should not be afraid of words, but that’s another rant), but for black and white list it makes no sense to want to get rid of it AFAICT, apart from definitely saying black and white persons are indeed different.
When using stupid rules to rule the words, we get stupid things, like people wanting to change the word history to his or herstory. Yes, seriously.
We have to stop.
How dare you?
that is what banks like the ones on this list do
Governments, corporations, and individuals would all want to have guardrails in place to prevent fraud and abuse. Let alone, any kind of attempt at controlling transactions to terrorist organizations or sanctioned individuals.
You and I could certainly transact privately but if your wallet address was flagged, I would need to do so using a separate private wallet address and never transfer funds to or from that to my wallet address that I use with my employer or the store. Maintaining perfect opsec forever to never link those addresses lest the big bad government flags me.
So why wouldn’t they have the same systems in place that they have today if we were on Bitcoins instead of dollars? And if the issue is bad governance, why would we even need bitcoin? It’s clear the solution is fixing the government and corporations.
This list contains (among other types of identifiers) a bunch of cryptocurrency addresses, and exchanges/hosted wallets/etc in the United States will refuse to do business with you if there's any association with one of these addresses.
And also this highlights why cryptocurrency probably won’t achieve mass adoption. Being able to send nfts that are actually viruses that drain a user’s wallet if they interact with it could allow for automated fraud on a scale never seen before.
I’m highlighting how cryptocurrency would probably not be adopted as it works today and would likely have guardrails to prevent fraud, abuse, and a block list of “bad addresses” associated with transactions the government and corporate do not approve of. Like how fiat works today. It’s on cryptocurrency advocates to explain how mass adoption would avoid bad governance. And if we can eliminate bad governance by developing strong legal protections, rights to privacy and so on, why is the transition to crypto necessary if you had a right to freely, privately, and securely make digital transactions?
The way bitcoin wallets work nowadays is that when you have some bitcoin on an address and you sent some coins to somebody it splits into two addresses, the receiver and a new address signed with your wallet key. But it is non-trivial to introspect the blockchain to know which of the two addresses you control now. It isn't perfect anonymity but it also isn't as trivial as creating a blocklist of addresses or wallets.
Without a legal right to private digital transactions why would the mass adoption of Bitcoin make that a reality and the system not just be rebuilt in a few years? And if we had a legal right to private digital transactions, why would Bitcoin even be used for everyday transactions if dollars are good enough?
The point isn't to fix the system, its to figure out a way around the system. To make the regulation of Bitcoin/etc. a technical impossibility. So even if you don't have a right to private digital transactions it doesn't matter. Right now, you don't need a bank to transfer bitcoin to/from dollars, there exist already countless ways around it.
Thats all to say if you believe in unregulated capitalism and not that there are very good reasons for a lot of the regulations, and even the parts that are corrupt or broken should not lead you to advocate for no regulations at all, which would effectively end up in a Mad Max dystopia.
It’s a good question.
The soft libertarian crypto-advocate answer might be: Because this discrimination based on ‘badness’ of transaction purposes is antithetical to the whole original ethos of Bitcoin.
The practical answer, in my opinion, might be: Because this powers the adoption of Zero Knowledge obfuscation technologies that make tracing transactions almost impossible. So then the only solution is a total ban on all non-approved, untracked financial transactions, which is a frightening intrusion into personal liberties.
And, obviously, many people’s answer would be: Yes, that sounds good, and it will protect us from many bad things.
But, looking At Washington right now (for example), can you honestly see this happening anytime soon? I’m sorry, but I can’t.
I think we should think about how we can work around that gridlock, even if we’re just doing it to pressure the powers-that-be (government, banks etc) to do a slightly better job.
They are possible. But it isn’t easy. I just feel, that what cryptocurrency advocates want is really a right to privacy. That the current systems do not have. A currency using a hardcoded hyper deflationary monetary policy and is barely able to make a fraction of the current rate of fiat transactions is hopefully not what they are actually after.
An empty new wallet doesn’t help you pay for groceries right now.
A banking license, granted by the government, is quite literally a license to print money via the fractional reserve system.
If we're granting you a license to print money, you cease to be a private business who can choose your customers. You are a provider of government infrastructure, and should not be allowed to block any commerce that hasn't been declared illegal by legislation created by our elected representatives.
KYC requirements makes touching customers with crypto really risky, since KYC essentially codifies guilty until proven innocent. High volume cash businesses have been seeing this a lot too.
How do new Bitcoins enter circulation again?
The Crypto Bro Force is still high with this one...
However, I do not believe banks, which we allow to exist, should be allowed to become non-elected dictators, blocking fully legal transactions based on whatever the media mood of the day is.
The only justifiable rationale for blocking such transactions, IMO, is to try to help your customers from being scammed or, more broadly, putting themselves into a precarious financial situation. Hence why they should have similar blocks on gambling.
But really, where I transfer my money is not the bank's business, and they often offer their own products that would allow people to put themselves into a bad financial position, e.g., trading on margin. So it comes off less as 'this is for your own good' and more as 'we will not allow you to engage in what we see as our competition.'
Some people will use cryptocurrency for various legitimate reasons. For that group, let them have a list of banks that will let them do cryptocurrency stuff. If they have the agency to find a bank that allows these transactions, they at least understand the potential for scams, fraud, etc.
And some people will be involved in cryptocurrency-scams where thieves steal their life savings away. For that group, the unsophisticated bank user, cryptocurrency-off is probably a good thing.
I was hoping the pendulum would swing back to sanity on this.
Is the term back to neutral or still considered harmful?
Given the number of people who are convinced crypto is "a scam"; it is a source of perverse pleasure to me at how hard the governments of the world are having to work to try and contain it.
Do you also take perverse pleasure at environmental pollution and how hard everyone has to work to contain it? What about road accidents?