They selectively attack Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, mixing services and even Mixing protocol, source code like Tornado Cash, in order to attack this industry.

If they apply the same set of rules with knife, gun, Internet and other things in society, they will go to ban all things in human civilization. They will even have to ban their own centralized bank systems because banks and bank products are used by criminals too.

I guessed that after attacking Bitcoin mixers, they will move their targets to Bitcoin Lightning Network but it will not stop here, layer 2, DeFi platforms, bridges will be their next targets.

Oh I see. They've seen another possible threat to their proposed centralization.

Just because the two-party multisignature payment channels will not allow them to monitor all transactions that looks to be happening behind the scene, they find it as a heavy threat. They are scared because the only thing they might have access to are all finalized transactions.

But is there anything that is not under attack in the EU? Well, yes, things like veganism, new genders (gender fluid and such), bike lanes that create more traffic jams in cities, mass immigration, victim mentality, permissiveness with criminals and aggressiveness against the honest citizen if he gets the wrong bin when throwing out the garbage. Things like that.

If something is bullshit and it comes from the EU, I'm not surprised, given what I've seen. It's business as usual.

They should have by now been tired of all these because its taking them to nowhere, they have always been setting targets on attack for bitcoin and none availed till now, government will never support anything that can give us the required privacy that we want because its going to completely render them effortless towards having control over the system, we are the ones that should get determined and go for what we want and shift focus on news like this coming from them.

you might want to learn what their regulations actually are. i have seen a few topics of people creating clickbait/fearbait titles nothing to do with the actual regulations but instead are OP's misinterpretation just to click bait discourse for views

it then becomes harder to campaign/ petition against real negave changes of jurisdiction/treatment by government if these silly clickbait topics are distracting people away from the real issues

EG
the EU going after LN routers has nothing to do with bitcoin.. it about LN routing(totally different software needed(not bitcoin node) its also about a different network(not bitcoin) its also about the payment method and model is different to bitcoin

LN routers process payments completely and utterly different to how mining pools and bitcoins nodes relay bitcoin transactions..

Not just EU, every government will slowly try to control the circulation of cryptocurrency in their country. United States has started. EU has passed many bills regarding Anti Money Laundering approach and included cryptos in them. So what is happening was very much fixed from the beginning.

It's very normal for the government to start and attack on something that they cannot fully control. EU is not an exception. But at least they haven't imposed a blanket ban on cryptocurrency. That would have been disastrous.

One would hope that a thoughtful court of law (should it come to that) would recognize that the usefulness to the public of greatly reduced time to complete a transaction ( a few seconds at most), along with  transaction fees that are a tiny fraction of main chain fees, would overwhelmingly dwarf the negative impact of the few illegal transactions that may be occurring (much like with cash).

This is why I am kind of unimpressed with Phoenix wallet running away from the US market so quickly after the Samourai charges, when they weren't requested to block  US cutomers or charged with anything.

cryptocurrencies dont have eyes, ears or brains. they are just code. governments cant control the crypto because decentralised code has no brain. and authorities dont have the manpower to control, monitor all of crypto
however authorities can control the businesses and people that interact with crypto

government and law enforcement do not track suspicious transactions of any/all crypto currency themselves..
you will not find any office where cops or government leaders are sat at computers monitoring crypto transactions..
.. they delegate and use businesses to monitor their own customers and share information and then that information is used to investigate suspect crimes reported to authorities by the businesses
laws are made to cause businesses to become the monitoring services of their own customers
EG river financial/bitrefills and all other known services that do/will operate on lightning offering payment facilitation services such as routing and 'renting balance' will become the monitors and reporters

laws are made to cause a barrier of entry for small business/individuals to offer services, so that the larger businesses that are licenced(regulated/delegated) where they are set up to KYC/monitor customers actions become the defacto gateways that customers use to enter/exit/use crypto

How is LN doing data obfuscation, this part needs more clarity. Bitcoin LN for me is not Bitcoin and that is why I won't consider this ruling as an attack on Bitcoin. I also fail to understand why will criminals use LN when they have multiple options available to commit financial crimes, money laundering, convert black to white, etc. This decision according to me is trying to curb more regulation over the existing one and hamper Bitcoin LN adoption in the EU.
 

I hope that is not an article from Russian hackers attacking the EU and US via infowarfare propaganda. We should also consider how governments are dealing with these issues in Russia and China.

BTC>The Lightning Network (LN) and GDPR share a goal of empowering individuals to have more control over their personal data. However there are challenges in both technical aspects. For example LN reduces on chain data storage, which aligns with GDPRs data minimization principles.

When it comes to pseudonymity, versus anonymity, data controllers and processors must consider that LN transactions are linked to pseudonymous addresses rather than directly to personal identities. By implementing anonymity measures it becomes easier to uphold another core GDPR principle; the right to be forgotten.

Additionally determining the roles of data controllers and processors is complicated by the nature of LN.

Stepping back for a perspective the question arises; Should messages exchanged in LN be considered "personal data " or should they exclusively be viewed as financial data?