11 sats \ 14 replies \ @sethforprivacy OP 30 May \ parent \ on: The benefits of no-KYC Bitcoin | Freedom.Tech bitcoin
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.
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
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
You sent me sats on a custodial wallet from a custodial wallet using Lightning.
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
Strong example here. Let’s see what the response is!
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
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?
reply
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.