Wednesday, 24 March 2021

The FATF proposes P2P payment restrictions.

The unelected anti-human freedom hating demons from the Financial Action Task Force have ascended through the nine circles of Hell to propose new guidelines for "Virtual Asset Service Providers" and P2P digital transactions. We've been keeping track of this unelected body of officials who recommend regulations since May 2019 and these particular "guidelines" seem to be the most egregious in their attempts to persuade regulators in participating countries to ban P2P payments. If adopted by member countries and their regulatory bodies, this could be the first move towards banning P2P payments outside of exchanges or other entities deemed "Virtual Asset Service Providers".

As is typical with these sleuths, they are hiding behind "money laundering" and "terrorist financing" as boogeymen to justify their Draconian overreach. Since regulators and law enforcement agencies around the world have become so inept at identifying and stopping fraud the whole developed world must suffer with costly regulatory measures that increase barriers to entry and compliance costs for innovative businesses leveraging novel technology like bitcoin. The worst part is, these KYC/AML policies are WHOLLY INEFFECTIVE. The success rate of catching criminals is LITERALLY 0.1%-0.2%:

These policies have failed miserably time and time again since they've been forced on the public beginning with the Bank Secrecy Act and yet these LITERAL DEMONS want to keep increasing the burden on businesses and citizens by forcing them to collect and give up more information while at the same time preventing P2P transactions. Again, this is anti-human and anti-freedom in the Digital Age and we should tell these demons to scurry back in the fiery hole they climbed out of.

How many times must these policies be proven to be wholly ineffective before we begin demanding that they be clawed back entirely? How many innovative companies have failed to even get past the planning stages because the potential founders deemed the compliance costs too high? How many individuals have been prevented from leveraging freedom enabling technologies that could have saved them in a pinch because of fear of operating outside the scope of the regulatory state or inability to do so because of the regulated third parties they were forced to interact with?

We're in a battle, freaks. If the demonic beings at FATF get their way, the only "digital assets" that will be approved for use will be the CBDCs we talked about last week. CBDCs lead to one place and one place only, a digital panopticon that enslaves the human race by constricting free will and the ability of individuals to make economic decisions on behalf of themselves. They will have ABSOLUTE CONTROL and nothing makes it more clear that this is exactly what they want than the new guidelines put forth by FATF. If we want Liberty in the Digital Age we're going to need to fight it. The need for as many individuals to run and USE full nodes has never been more important. Take your bitcoin off exchanges while you still can and start contributing to the bitcoin circular economy where and when you can. The more peaceful and moral individuals that do this regularly (self custody and P2P transacting) the harder it will be for them to take it away.

Despite the tenor of this issue, your Uncle Marty is extremely optimistic that bitcoiners are going to win this battle. The powers that be don't have a leg to stand on, they tend to be the biggest criminals and prove to be totally incompetent time and time again. More and more individuals the world over are beginning to recognize this as is evidenced by the all time lows in trust in government institutions. It's time to be brave, stand up, and tell these demons to fuck off. I have faith that enough people are willing to do that today more than at any point in recent history. Call me naive if you want, but this is what I believe.

Financial Action Task Force Proposal

Join Marty Bents Newsletter

submitted by /u/jboy69x
[link] [comments]

A family shoe shop in Belgium accepts Bitcoin now as payment. "Bitcoin is the Future".

Schoenenwinkel in Sint-Truiden accepteert bitcoin als betalingsmiddel: "Bitcoin is de toekomst" https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2021/03/23/schoenenwinkel-in-sint-truiden-ontvangt-bitcoin-betalingen/

submitted by /u/Just_a_random_dino
[link] [comments]

Breez Lightning Bitcoin Client Integrates Native Podcasting Network

Breez Lightning Bitcoin Client Integrates Native Podcasting Network submitted by /u/xentagz
[link] [comments]


11 year old address involved in dusting attack costing millions?

Anyone able to provide some insight in very strange activity I have noticed?

Here we can see a July 2010 coinbase address spend to a bech32 address:https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/1H44TbhRh1HVYs1aCP7CcdPZJQkzpdR8fX

... at the same link you can also see that blockchair reports the 1H44T... address is involved in what seems to be a dusting attack.

Further - in each transaction 6 burner addresses are involved which contains the words: "Lets use full power of anonymity See memo dot sv topic hmwyda"

Here is the transactions (receivals) of the first burner address:https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/1Lets1xxxx1use1xxxxxxxxxxxy2EaMkJ

As you can see its currently ongoing and going for days involving varying amounts of BTC in each transaction. I am trying to estimate the USD involved for this attack by paging through the list of transactions. I have no idea how much is involved but it seems that it can easily be millions? (I'm sure someone will figure quickly exactly how much is involved).

What can be the intent of this? Surely not advertising as you can buy Superbowl ads with that kind of money. Any other ideas?

Edit:

Many seem to misunderstand what I mean by my "millions of dollars" claim. Let me try and explain... This attack (or whatever you want to call it) can be observed in the second link or this one which seems faster: https://btc.com/1Lets1xxxx1use1xxxxxxxxxxxy2EaMkJ. In each of these transactions a substantial amount of BTC was sent to hundreds of address as dust amounts. Dust amounts/utxo's is practically un-spendable because fees exceed their value. On this last link I shared there is 115 pages of these transactions with 20 transactions each. I used an average of 1 BTC per transaction spent to get to 2300 BTC or 115 Million US Dollars which is now un-spendable.

Edit 2:

My mistake was assuming all funds were sent as dust. This article - https://blog.lopp.net/history-bitcoin-transaction-dust-spam-storms/ (search for "BSV spam") - estimated ~11.5 BTC ($630,000) spent in fees + un-spendable dust 2 weeks ago. Still a senseless amount to spend on advertising so can only assume another motive like congesting the BTC chain for some reason.

submitted by /u/fiddley2000
[link] [comments]

You Can’t Be Too Late With Bitcoin but You Have the Freedom To Decide How Early You Want To Be

You Can’t Be Too Late With Bitcoin but You Have the Freedom To Decide How Early You Want To Be submitted by /u/sylsau
[link] [comments]


When your boy tries getting you into cryptocurrency

When your boy tries getting you into cryptocurrency submitted by /u/SAincognitomode
[link] [comments]


Feature or bug? Bitcoin.com wallet displaying the receiving address as “From” when viewing transaction.

I sent some BCH from one wallet to another. In the sending account, the UI displays the correct address as “To”. However, the receiving account displays the same address as “From”. Now I appreciate that when a transaction has multiple inputs, some with different addresses, is there really a meaningful “From” address? I see this behavior on every BCH transaction. I’m running version 6.11.7 on iOS.

So am I seeing a bug, or is the field just not labeled accurately? Like, should it be labeled “received to”? I contacted Bitcoin.com app support, but they said they couldn’t escalate the issue unless I could import my seed phrase into a second device.

The way it is, it’s like my wife saying “I got a letter” and when I ask where it’s from she says “our mailbox, not the top one, but the bottom one.” When she should really say “it’s from /u/MemoryDealers”.

submitted by /u/TheRealBeakerboy
[link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/mbnwbd/feature_or_bug_bitcoincom_wallet_displaying_the/