pull down to refresh
21 sats \ 6 replies \ @DarthCoin 11 Dec \ parent \ on: What happens when Bitcoiners start signaling with signatures? bitcoin
and is a slippery slope, forcing so called "voters" to verify KYC their addresses...
That is the whole game of this crap.
These signatures have no legal force, so there’s no need for KYC.
But the potential selling pressure they represent is very real.
reply
Then danger do not come from "legal force" but from bad actors leaking the info.
I can deal very easily and rebut the "legal force", but I cannot rebut the bad guy coming to my door with a shotgun asking for my wallets.
reply
That risk is real, yes.
But without KYC, a signature only proves that
“a holder exists”, not who the holder is.
A bad actor would still need some separate doxxing vector
to connect a signature with a physical identity.
So the safety question seems less about the signature itself,
and more about whatever personal exposure already existed.
reply
a signature from a pseudo-identity worth absolute ZERO, so why bother?
I can create infinite so called identities to sign a message, so is totally worthless for voting.
Voting in itself is dumb.
reply
True, a pseudo-identity can be created infinitely.
What can’t be created infinitely is the Bitcoin behind it.
That’s the part that can’t be faked, and the part that creates the constraint.
So the signature isn’t the signal by itself.
The economic weight attached to it is what makes the difference.
reply
LOL so now you want to see my stash too ?
nice try fed...
reply