The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

Scope of the Proposal vs. Clickbait Headline

• Several commenters argue the article misrepresents the change: the draft guidance lists patterns of suspicious crypto activity (mixers, structuring, chains of single-use addresses), not an outright ban on self‑custody.
• Others counter that in practice, “suspicious” often becomes “effectively forbidden” because regulated entities refuse to interact with flagged flows.
• There’s confusion over the Patriot Act’s status: some point out key provisions have sunsetted; others note many of its amendments and related authorities still underpin current Treasury actions.

“Guidelines” as De‑Facto Law

• Strong theme: financial regulations often start as “guidance” but become binding through bank compliance culture and vague legal risk.
• Examples from banking, guns, and knives are cited to show how soft rules can destroy businesses without ever producing a criminal conviction.
• This is framed as a deliberate strategy: avoid clear prohibitions that could be challenged in court; instead, make non‑conforming behavior too risky for intermediaries.

Bitcoin Mechanics and Privacy vs. Laundering

• Technical subthread on how standard wallets derive many addresses from one seed and use single‑use addresses by default for privacy and security.
• Treasury’s language about “single‑use wallets/addresses in series” is read by some as targeting normal privacy practices; others insist it’s aimed at mixer‑style chains, not basic HD wallets.
• Several note that Bitcoin’s public ledger forces anyone seeking privacy to behave in ways that resemble money laundering, which inevitably draws regulatory fire.

Legitimacy of AML vs. Financial Privacy

• One camp sees strong AML as non‑negotiable: money laundering is described as a huge enabler of crime, and dismantling AML is called politically impossible.
• Another camp stresses civil‑liberties risks: financial surveillance chills dissent, enables selective enforcement and civil forfeiture, and can later be weaponized when politics shift.
• Debate over whether financial privacy is as fundamental as speech/voting privacy; some say cash already provides that role, others argue digital cash should too.

Alternatives, Enforcement, and Politics

• Monero is repeatedly mentioned as a technically superior privacy coin; people note it’s already heavily restricted or delisted in many jurisdictions.
• Broader political critique: the Patriot Act and related tools are framed as part of a permanent “state of exception” and bipartisan power creep; both major US parties are accused of entrenching surveillance once gained.
• Some argue institutional “Bitcoin” (ETFs, custodial services) is now aligned with regulators and benefits from rules that push users away from self‑custody.