If you use Swan, you value convenience more than privacy.
People who value privacy more than convenience are using p2p methods of stacking and are unaffected.
If Swan's announcement affects you, maybe look into routing around fiatworld's limp attacks instead of wringing your hands.
Hey, all
I know it seems easy to rag on Swan - and I agree with Matt's dystopia comment, obviously- but I can tell you as a new pleb who's trying to get her family on board that it's helpful to have bitcoin-only companies out there. Swan has a simple interface (KYC, I know... but simple) and they actively encourage self-custody.
Also notice that it's not Swan itself that's anticipating the FinCEN regulation by cutting off connection to mixer wallets (assuming they're being honest in the letter).
And they tell customers exactly how to go around the new rule.
FOSS fixes this. Freedom protocols all the way up and down.
Honestly donโt get yer panties too much in a bunch about Swan. As far as #nostr goes WoS is a bigger honeypot.
Am I correct in assuming that swapping into and out of lightning or even just performing a single-hop tx from the mix address subvert this horseshit?
View quoted note โ
these lying, stealing criminals have no idea the wrath of what is coming to them. The mistakes and the criminal (morally) acts that they are taking part it are condemnable. I am a free person, and speaking freely as a free man will do the following.
1. Never sell my bitcoin
2. Fuck you
3. suck my dick, everyone.
4. burn my keys in a fury of fire before giving access to any government cuck (pussy bitch) who can't enforce the words he writes down on a piece of paper, let alone take my keys without the help of grunts
these are the rules. I don't make them. All glory to god, please be at my side. Men are born free.
What's up with the wording?
- "...termination of your account with our banking and custodial partners."
- it might be bad wording, but it doesn't say termination of the "swan accounts".
Are they saying that the banks/custodians will start shutting the accounts (ie bank accounts) of the specific people associated with specific Swan transactions?
How does the "partner" identify these specific people out of its all clients engaging with Swan?
I''m from the other side of the world. Can someone shed some lights on this matter?
1. Swan is a platform that offer service for people to buy bitcoin and bitcoin only.
2. They encourage all their users to withdraw and self-custody.
3. They are anticipating govt giving problems and help users to think ahead and be prepared.
4. They operate under US law.
Questions:
A: Is 1, 2 and 3 not a good thing for bitcoin?
B: What are the benefit for bitcoin and people wanting to stack bitcoin to have Swan not complying and getting shut down?
C: Some insist people should not buy bitcoin on any regulated platform and that people should just earn bitcoin. But most people cannot earn bitcoin even if they wish to. In my country, I certainly cannot earn bitcoin. And the only way to buy bitcoin is to send fiat to regulated exchanges with KYC. Good thing they still allow withdrawal.
All fiat companies are subject to this kind of abuse in the long run...
We are just getting a taste of what's coming.
Everyone better start digging into P2P solutions to replace these honeypots.
View quoted note โ
bitcoin needs on-chain privacy. as long as they can tell apart between a bitcoin that has a tail of transactions and a bitcoin that has been freshly minted, they can force exclusion like this.
Check Samourai Ricochet spend tool. When to use: "When sending to an exchange or other third party service that may look at this history of your coins."
They're algorithm will be x hops.
In this statement, it says deposting directly to/from, so that's zero hops.
Like playing 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon, if they were to say we're kicking out anyone who's within 7 hops of a CJ, they wouldn't have any self-custody customers.