The power to enforce such laws largely comes from the money printer. Hopefully without an unlimited money fountain, the influence of the state dwindles over time.

alwayshasbeen.jif

Nah. I won't allow it. So we good.

+1

I see it evolving into a fight between 2 networks and network effects with largely one-way connections between the two.

The superior permissionless p2p network will be getting exploited through the one-directional leakage to the KYC one until the tech improvements obliterate the censorship of this connection.

Fortunately, the harder they squeeze, the faster the tech evolves.

USA: At step 2 we're transitioning into a Government as a Service company

I have found the only way they can do this is if you incorporate with them (i.e. 501 c3, llc, s-corp,...) then you are contract with them and they can say and do whatever they want. Also, don't get licensed with them. Soultion, don't sign anything with them! Just set up shop and start taking Bitcoin. :) Then if they try and start something with you, they become the criminal.

I expect big changes coming to data transfer over the internet. Not allowing any traffic without the mark of the beast, and going after anything encrypted as if it were someone questioning election results. I have been thinking about how to encrypt using obfuscation rather than encryption.

In fact, It has been in the back of my mind for quite some time that high volume of zaps could serve to be that obfuscation for bitcoin transactions. Not sure who pulls that sting... Jack probably knows that club.

Things are going to heat up frens. Stacking sats wont save you anymore than gold coins. It is true, they cant stop bitcoin, but they do funnel and filter the internet. I am more bullish on mesh nets than bitcoin, unpopular as that statement is.

Spain is heading slowly towards the step 1. They have their FBAR, and this or next year they extend it to bitcoin and cryptocurrencies held on foreign exchanges. (https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2022/12/30/economia/1672404046_312886.html) The idea is that local (Spanish) exchanges do KYC and report directly about their customers, and Spanish tax residents report about their bitcoin held by foreign custodians. Strangely, they exempt self-custody. Probably because they have no idea how things work: they originally proposed reporting public keys of your bitcoins held by foreign custodian. (https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2022/06/29/economia/1656506084_005184.html).

But I wouldn't count on this lack of knowledge, it is easily solvable, they have the motivation.

Well, but how do you distinguish between terrorists and law-obedient serfs of other governments? French or Japanese serfs have no US tax ID. A coordinated attack by FATF? Any country which doesn't implement registration ends up on a black list? Or it doesn't matter much, because bitcoin is used mostly for hodling, and no one cares about a few angry foreign weirdos who cannot pay by BTC in US, or few importers/exporters?

Then there is Lightning: the recipient has no was of knowing the origin of the funds. You would need to be drastic here, cutting the network in two. An US entity is only allowed to have channels with other US entities, and all the funding of those channels must come from registered wallets. Again, FATF or some other international cooperation could help a lot, so the walled garden includes say whole OECD, not just USA.