related posts
342 sats \ 31 replies \ @DarthCoin 30 May
There's no such thing as no-KYC bitcoin and KYC bitcoin.
If that will ever existed, Bitcoin will be worthless, is already failed, will stop existing.
Please stop saying this bullshit of "no-KYC bitcoin".
Yes, KYC is really bad but have nothing to do with bitcoin and also do not create two different versions of bitcoin.
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @Lumor 30 May
Pretending there is no distinction between KYC and no-KYC UTXOs is like the full inversion of ordinals theory.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 30 May
Please show me any proof that there are 2 distinct UTXOs
That right there means that one of them is NOT Bitcoin.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lumor 30 May
Degens - see ordinals inside UTXOs.
Governments - see identity metadata stored in their databases referencing specific UTXOs.
Darth - sticks head in sand.
reply
11 sats \ 14 replies \ @sethforprivacy OP 30 May
Unfortunately that's just false, as Bitcoin is not fungible. The history of every coin is transparent and visible, so your purchase of Bitcoin via KYC necessarily has a tie between your ID and your subsequent on-chain activity.
no-KYC bitcoin is far more useful and freedom-preserving than that purchased via KYC.
reply
221 sats \ 7 replies \ @DarthCoin 30 May
I just gave you 1 sat for this comment, using a UTXO from a KYC exchange. Please find my IP, address and my real identity and the original UTXO of this 1 sat.
Please give me a break with this bullshit crap of "non-KYC Bitcoin".
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @sethforprivacy OP 30 May
That's not how this works lmao.
You sent me sats on a custodial wallet from a custodial wallet using Lightning.
The issues with KYC are detailed in the article, which you don't seem to have read. A receiver being able to tie your identity back to your funds is only one of many issues and risks.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 30 May
Does it matter? No. Or you now says that sats from a custodial account are not the same sats ?
I could pay also a zap on SN from an anon wallet (external wallet) that have nothing to do with SN account.
OK, please send me an invoice of 100 sats. I will pay it from any other LN wallet.
Apply the same.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @BlokchainB 30 May
Strong example here. Let’s see what the response is!
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @rizzling 30 May
deleted by author
reply
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @rizzling 30 May
correction: lets find him xD
reply
71 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 30 May
I am cyborg remember?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @rizzling 30 May
maybe we both are the same entity. are we even humans? :P
reply on another page
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @coolstacker 30 May
That's a privacy problem. Not a fungibility. Fungibility is when all the units of the system are equally valuable, which is true. Every bitcoin can be traded with $68k, or its respective exchange rate in other currencies.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @machuPikacchu 30 May
What is your opinion of the silent payment proposal [1] (BIP 352)? Suppose that becomes the default/preferred method of receiving bitcoin. Can that alleviate some of the concerns around exchanges tracking where the sats flow?
- https://gist.github.com/RubenSomsen/c43b79517e7cb701ebf77eec6dbb46b8
reply
110 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 30 May
That is another story, is good but have nothing to do with "KYC vs non-KYC bitcoin".
I will repeat: if will exist such thing, Bitcoin will cease to exist.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @itsMoro 30 May freebie
are you saying kyc on the btc protocol level vs. kyc on a govt jurisdictional level, essentially?
1 sat \ 12 replies \ @RedRadish688 31 May
What about the related topic of tainted coins? I have seen different people asking in forum posts for chainanalysis services they can subscribe to, to filter out risky addresses, because they don't want to be associated with them.
Are you ever worried about a scenario, where everyone only accepts bitcoin from non tainted addresses? Would you consider bitcoin failed in this case?
reply
20 sats \ 11 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 May
There's no such thing. That is another bullshit narrative pushed into newbies minds.
If such thing will exist, Bitcoin will cease to exist.
reply
0 sats \ 10 replies \ @RedRadish688 31 May
I don't think we disagree here.
The question about whether this narrative exists or not depends on whether people believe in it or not. If enough people accept bitcoin from all sources without filtering it, its a bullshit narrative. If everyone starts subscribing to services, that classify risky addresses it will become real. And in this case in my opinion bitcoin has failed.
I don't have an overview over how many people currently subscribe to this narrative, but its certainly greater than zero.
reply
110 sats \ 7 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 May
It doesn't matter from where you get your bitcoin. It doesn't really matter if you got some sats from a KYC exchange.
It matter if you NEVER go back to fiat.
It matter how you are doing a good coin control.
I wrote several guides about these aspects:
- ₿itcoin - Be your own bank, think like a bank
- Getting Started Stacking Sats Noob Journey
- From where can I get some ₿itcoin?
- ⚡ Lightning ⚡ Cleaning Machine
- ₿itcoin and privacy
- Operating with ⚡ Lightning Network ⚡ as a merchant
and many more on: https://darth-coin.github.io
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @RedRadish688 31 May
These are all great guides. I have read many of them and practice a lot of the stuff already.
Still, doesn't the act of coin control imply that I have to treat the coins different depending on where they come from? And that with some coins I am more limited in what I can pay than with others?
Let's assume I have received some coins from an address that my government has banned. I would not be comfortable in paying my rent with these coins, as it would connect them to my real identity. I can buy something completely anonymously or I can try solutions, like coinjoin, submarine swaps, opening a lightning channel. But all the solutions still require that the counterparty accepts these coins.
As government pressure mounts, it is not unrealistic to assume that fewer and fewer counterparties will accept them.
reply
90 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 May
If a merchant will (be able) reject a tx from your BTC wallet because you obtain those sats from a KYC source or will require you to provide the source of those coins, in that moment BTC will cease to exist.
FUCK THE GOV! Why do you need gov approval to use your own money?
Rebut ANY gov, they do not have any authority or jurisdiction over your own money.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @RedRadish688 31 May
Yes, it is also but I believe. My point is, you seem to consider this scenario as very unrealistic? While in my view the trend seems to be more and more in this direction and that it something we need to actively discourage / fight against.
I see your point. Again it boils down to the previous question of whether enough people are willing to accept my money. If this remains true, then indeed no government has any authority over my money.
view replies
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @sethforprivacy OP 31 May
This has been happening for years...
https://sethforprivacy.com/posts/fungibility-graveyard/
reply
50 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 May
I will take all your "KYC-coins" happily.
reply
21 sats \ 8 replies \ @BlokchainB 30 May
I often think about this issue but I’m with Darth on this. After you buy it and secure the private key you can send it to an open dime and it becomes a bearer asset. Sure they have record of you buying it just like the bank has record of you taking out cash but if I lose the open dime or give it away I no longer have control and the ID link is broken just like cash.
I often think anyone who complains about KYC and no KYC better have 100% a cash balance for everything they do. Every thing in the western world needs ID to transact and I just think it’s a solution to all the fraud humans take part in throughout time.
reply
162 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 30 May
The real problem with KYC data is that is just a matter of time until it get leaked. Is not about if, but about when.
That KYC data is more dangerous than about how much BTC you bought and on which address you send it.
The danger of leaked KYC info is that it gets in wrong hands. Govs doesn't give a shit about how much BTC you bought. If you never go back to fiat, you have absolutely nothing to worry.
Only fiat maxis are worried about sats bought on a KYC exchange.
If you are already living in a Bitcoin standard, you absolutely don't give a shit about that.
NOBODY can prove any jurisdiction or authority over my own money (bitcoin).
You worry only if that KYC data will get leaked.
And that's why is better to avoid as much is possible any KYC services.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Hamstr 30 May
@DarthCoin, you must have a bunch of bitcoin hiding under your mattress. I don't think this is the case for the rest of the world. Are you living in like Nicargua or something? I say this because this is a country that the US wouldn't go through lengths to extradite you. Especially if you're anon.
reply
90 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 30 May
Please find that passport in the name of Darth Coin...
and btw... I identify as a Darth-Cat. Govs can kiss my ass.
I am living in a far far far away galaxy... on my Death Star
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Hamstr 30 May
fixed. cute kitty
reply
20 sats \ 3 replies \ @sethforprivacy OP 30 May
The ID link is not at all broken because Bitcoin is a transparent, easily surveilled ledger.
It's trivial for an exchange to follow your activity after you withdraw and happens all the time, even with people's accounts being closed because they did something the exchange didn't like after they withdrew.
Lots of examples here: https://sethforprivacy.com/posts/fungibility-graveyard/
reply
210 sats \ 1 reply \ @MiddleWay 31 May
those stories are about IOUs, not about Bitcoin. 1 BTC = 1 BTC when you open a lightning channel. It is fully fungible. Period.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 31 May
Or an interaction with the fiat system . I don’t see anything that is peer to peer that got flag for being “dirty” Bitcoin
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 31 May
But the Open dime is a bearer asset. If I go to a bitcoin conference and give the open dime to a random person who comes to my booth. And that person never uses it to get fiat and they keep it or spend it anonymously then the link is broken. If chain surveillance tracks the utxo from my own identity they still more data to find out who I gave the open dime to at the conference
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @030e0dca83 30 May
In my humble opinion crypto exchanges die later or earlier and KYC information with them
All what you have to worry about - the amount of sats you stack, and if you didn't stole it no need to be worry at all
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @MiddleWay 31 May
"exchange would be able to track all further transactions you make" is just false. They will see the withdrawal tx and assume this is my address. The next tx from this address can be me paying for drugs and sluts, or moving to my other address, or both (I know how to pay with no change). They cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt whose those following UTXOs are. Even the first address can be someone else's if I donate or repay a debt. Buying someone else's "KYC" coins p2p to turn them into "non-KYC" is absurd if everything is traceable. If I spend them to finance terrorism the other guy must be jailed regardless by that logic.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 31 May
What about pegging into Liquid to evade chain analysis?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @MiddleWay 31 May
Yes, even better. Bitcoin in three forms - onchain, lightning, liquid - morphing into one another like this: https://medium.com/@goryachev/liquid-rebalancing-of-lightning-channels-2dadf4b2397a
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Athena 31 May
I know Bitcoin. I don't know 'no kyc Bitcoin.'
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 31 May
The article doesn't narrate what is KYC Bitcoin! IMO, those who make this distinction are the ones who want to talk about custodial Bitcoin and say that it's the KYC form of Bitcoin. But again as it's not their Bitcoin so there's no reason to call it KYC Bitcoin.
reply