Thank you for the thoughtful and in depth analysis of our privacy policy.
Our main objective is to contribute to the longevity of the Bitcoin Lightning Network's development as the main financial payments system of the future. For enterprises and holders of large amounts of bitcoin to adopt LN, assurances about payment reliability and risk mitigation need to be in-place. This is what we are providing at Amboss. For the purposes of improving LN performance, we crowd-source information from LN operators and users. For data that is not publicly available, this information must be requested; in other words, the data owner opts-in to provide it.
To help lightning network mature, we operate a data analytics company that helps users make thoughtful decisions about whom to connect to. We have taken many steps to ensure that we are being thoughtful about the development of the lightning and our design decisions to help the lightning network's long-term growth. This, in many ways, is achieved by opt-in, transparent data collection to create ways for users to manage risks as well as improve payment performance. All feedback is welcomed; this helps us make better design decisions.
I'm happy to hear that privacy is a priority for you and I hope that our policy can help guide development of better privacy tools for users and more ways for users to consciously decide what information they would like to share. This is the essence of privacy: the right to choose which information to disclose.
sure whatever
reply
Concerning that you didn't deny you are selling user personal identifying data. At least not to 3 letter agencies.
Think we can all presume there is benefit to providing metric-level data that owners and users are anonymized from. It's a value-add to many businesses, if you can categorize that data. But just stating that users are consciously giving you permission to creep on them and not 'clean' that data, is pretty inflammatory.
Surely you can do better, whilst still running a successful company and serving the industry. Or are we missing something behind words, which have likely been vetted by a legal pro?
reply