Pretty disappointing considering this guy has been appearing everywhere the last months with a mask, hiding his identity and pretending to be a privacy advocate. But yes, might be a strategic move, considering the recent attacks on privacy enhancing services. Will see how it plays out.
27 sats \ 3 replies \ @tolot 18 May
This is not the point, sorry. Ecash is a technology to improve tremendously custodianships, thus KYC is only a matter of time. Also fiat shitcoins have some ecash projects out there, that are LESS privacy oriented. Therefore the adoption of Cashu in a fiat shitcoin environment is still better than the current system and the goal of Cashu has always been to improve privacy with custodians. I cannot see an issue with this protocol extension...this will not be enforced by default, it's simply a feature for mints that want to use it because of regulatory needs.
reply
So what is not entirely clear to me, what does this protocol change involve?
  1. Just support for a general authentication mechanism, like e.g. we have basic auth in the http protocol? Or
  2. more general functionality to perform kyc / aml procedures at the protocl level?
Case 1. sounds ok to me, there can always be a reason for a mint to want to restrict access only to certain users. Case 2 would go little bit too far for me, even if exchanges demand it, it still doesn't mean that a privacy activist should comply proactively and add support for this at the protocol level, even if its optional.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @tolot 19 May
Case 1 is the thing here. Just support for authentication mechanisms.
reply
ok, that sounds fine. Thank you for the clarification.
reply