[false] Denmark bans self-custodial wallets

[Stompix]

I say if a company want to create a decentralized or self custodial wallet, they should not integrate any other functions in them to avoid themselves from any lawsuits.

If a company wants to create a decentralized environment then it should be truly decentralized not with them being the only service available directly to the wallet, much like the whole Netscape vs Microsoft drama.
You either go fully NGO NoN-Profit and you allow your users truly decentralized and barrier-free features or you implement more features than those games that require you to pay for everything in order to play and face the consequences of earning money from your customers!

Too many "free" products lately that make a ton of money out of "free" stuff.

[Fiatless]

This is absolutely nothing to be afraid of, or even give attention, any country can ban anything related to crypto they want, or even crypto in its entire self, but the issue have always been in its implementation.
For example, Nigerian government banned crypto entirely in the whole of the country, but it's citizens still go about crypto like there was or is no ban at all, I believe this will be the same story in Denmark, how are they going to effect this ban? To make sure that citizens don't continue using self custody wallets even after this ban? There is no way to implement such a rule, even if they restrict citizens' access to the domains of those wallets, citizens can always use VPN to bypass such restrictions.

When something is illegal engaging in such activity becomes a criminal offense. Which means one can go to jail for using non-custodian wallets. This is a big problem for people who cherish privacy. So there are many things to be scared of. In my country, the police can search your phone at will, and if they see a decentralized wallet you are a suspect that will be exploited or sent to jail. It is far better not to have this rule in place because trying to invade these bans can be risky. And such laws can hinder crypto adoption because many people wouldn't want to take such a risk.

[Faisal2202]

If a company wants to create a decentralized environment then it should be truly decentralized not with them being the only service available directly to the wallet, much like the whole Netscape vs Microsoft drama.
You either go fully NGO NoN-Profit and you allow your users truly decentralized and barrier-free features or you implement more features than those games that require you to pay for everything in order to play and face the consequences of earning money from your customers!

Too many "free" products lately that make a ton of money out of "free" stuff.

Good point, a company should follow its path the one it set at its inception. For example, Metamask wallet was first used for storing assets, etc. but later they introduced staking and other stuff to make more money and now SEC is on their ass because SEC say they are providing the staking of unregistered assets while there is exchange Robinhood which did not introduced staking feature AFAIK. I think it's a good move because if they had introduced it like Binance, Coinbase, KuCoin, etc. they would be facing the same consequences as well. I know I am talking about CEXs, not DEXs but Metamask counts as decentralized.

So yeah, a platform should stick to the main idea, I think they modify it because the trend for some projects is changing as the demand is changing. So, whatever people will demand most of the decentralized platforms try to provide it. Besides I liked the last statement, it's really confusing though but makes sense when we talk about DEXs.

[Stompix]

~

Good point, a company should follow its path the one it set at its inception. For example, Metamask wallet was first used for storing assets, etc. but later they introduced staking and other stuff to make more money and now SEC is on their ass because SEC say they are providing the staking of unregistered assets while there is exchange Robinhood which did not introduced staking feature AFAIK.

Well, I really can't really blame them for changing their ways with that much money insight, Metamask is developed by company, whose purpose is to make money, ok, make money, offer all the services you want, and strat charging us for using metamask but don't go weasel your way out of being licensed and paying taxes! If you change your business from selling ice cream to being a bank, act like one, not come up with excuses.

while there is exchange Robinhood which did not introduced staking feature AFAIK.

Because some companies simply don't want to get involved in this mess as they see it as too costly, some do it as they think they can manage and some do it not caring at all about their circumstance as they think being registered in the Bahamas is a bulletproof way to be out of the reach of any regulation.

In my country, the police can search your phone at will, and if they see a decentralized wallet you are a suspect that will be exploited or sent to jail.

What country is that?

[Fivestar4everMVP]

This is absolutely nothing to be afraid of, or even give attention, any country can ban anything related to crypto they want, or even crypto in its entire self, but the issue have always been in its implementation.
For example, Nigerian government banned crypto entirely in the whole of the country, but it's citizens still go about crypto like there was or is no ban at all, I believe this will be the same story in Denmark, how are they going to effect this ban? To make sure that citizens don't continue using self custody wallets even after this ban? There is no way to implement such a rule, even if they restrict citizens' access to the domains of those wallets, citizens can always use VPN to bypass such restrictions.

When something is illegal engaging in such activity becomes a criminal offense. Which means one can go to jail for using non-custodian wallets. This is a big problem for people who cherish privacy. So there are many things to be scared of. In my country, the police can search your phone at will, and if they see a decentralized wallet you are a suspect that will be exploited or sent to jail. It is far better not to have this rule in place because trying to invade these bans can be risky. And such laws can hinder crypto adoption because many people wouldn't want to take such a risk.

Well, after reading the update, I am happy that the ban on self - custody wallet rumors turned out to be just an actual rumor, which was all false, but then, as much as what you said did make a lot of sense to me, I still will like to let you know that as much as a government of a country has power over the citizens that they rule over, they aren't at liberty to just do any thing, ban or allow anything they please.

When a government declares a ban on something which everyone knows that them banning that thing was simply for their selfish interest, and not really because that thing is bad, if almost all the citizens of that country ignore that ban and continue to make of use of the thing, trust me, the government will have no choice but to retrace their steps, because it is never possible for a government to send more than half of her citizens to jail, no where has that ever been done before.

[Stompix]

When a government declares a ban on something which everyone knows that them banning that thing was simply for their selfish interest, and not really because that thing is bad, if almost all the citizens of that country ignore that ban and continue to make of use of the thing, trust me, the government will have no choice but to retrace their steps, because it is never possible for a government to send more than half of her citizens to jail, no where has that ever been done before.

Oh really?
How is crypto usage in North Korea? Oh wait, how is internet usage, oh damn, my bad how is everything in North Korea?
In totalitarian countries, the government allows you as much freedom as they think is necessary, after publicly executing 600 people for protesting do you think the religious fanatics in Iran would have a problem banning wallets?
If Russia does this tomorrow and everyone caught will be sent to war, do you think people will keep using crypto?

This was a lucky situation in a truly democratic country, where they didn't even think of banning it in the first place, but get this stupid idea in the head of a dictator and see the outcome!

[examplens]

In totalitarian countries, the government allows you as much freedom as they think is necessary, after publicly executing 600 people for protesting do you think the religious fanatics in Iran would have a problem banning wallets?
If Russia does this tomorrow and everyone caught will be sent to war, do you think people will keep using crypto?

It's not like things work that way in totalitarian regimes. Dictatorship governments pass rigorous laws, but they also liberally allow the same laws to be broken. The use of crypto in such cases is most beneficial to those who have power because it allows them to hide the money they have or for all dirty transactions more easily.
At the same time, ordinary people are consciously allowed to work outside of the law and thus divert attention from some real needs that should be normal for everyone. Which results in a smaller revolt against the government.

For example, in North Korea, it's less of a problem if you hold 0.5BTC than if you say that Kim Jong Un is an backdoor.

[Stompix]

It's not like things work that way in totalitarian regimes. Dictatorship governments pass rigorous laws, but they also liberally allow the same laws to be broken. The use of crypto in such cases is most beneficial to those who have power because it allows them to hide the money they have or for all dirty transactions more easily.

I lived in one! They allow everything that doesn't harm their interest and a functional underground economy for the masses is the last they want if it threatens their interests, all those things that broke the law like underground imports and currency were in fact controlled by the state allowing certain individual to do it as long as it was beneficial to them, the moment something crosses the line it was stopped in seconds.

If you think a totalitarian regime would allow anything to go out of its control and grow inside its system you're definitely mistaken or you're not talking about a totalitarian regime at all.

[examplens]

If you think a totalitarian regime would allow anything to go out of its control and grow inside its system you're definitely mistaken or you're not talking about a totalitarian regime at all.

It's just quite complex and I didn't want to go into details and expand the discussion in that direction.
For example, the totalitarian regime, in addition to prohibiting drug trading, still allows it within a certain limit. At the same time, the biggest dealers and players are under the control of the same regime.
Someone can do the same work "under the radar", but only until the amounts are significant. The regime is aware of this and consciously allows it, as long as it has insight (control) into the entire system and as long as it suits it.

[Faisal2202]

Well, I really can't really blame them for changing their ways with that much money insight, Metamask is developed by company, whose purpose is to make money, ok, make money, offer all the services you want, and strat charging us for using metamask but don't go weasel your way out of being licensed and paying taxes! If you change your business from selling ice cream to being a bank, act like one, not come up with excuses.

You are right, if they are expanding their business then you must comply with the law and consider facing all the problems as well. I think they just think they have achieved a lot and have a big reputation in the community so why not introduce more features that are most likely to attract the authorities? As I read your POV about Robin Hood and I also agree with that.

Because they were smart enough to not mess with something that they think will bring problems to them and now AFAIK they have bought the Bitstamp exchange as well. The success of Robin Hood is considerable because it was started by two fellows and the story is awesome after knowing the story I can tell they are smart enough to do all updates in compliance with law.