đź“… Original date posted:2016-06-23
đź“ť Original message:On 6/23/2016 1:56 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>
>> I don’t know if you are opposed to organizations that have AML requirements
>> from using the bitcoin blockchain, but if you aren’t, why wouldn’t you
>> prefer an open source, open standards based solution to exclusionary,
>> proprietary ones?
>
> In some (most?) countries, it is illegal to offer telecoms services without
> wiretap facilities. Does that mean Tor builds into its software "open source"
> "open standards" wiretapping functionality? No. And interestingly, people
> trying to add support for that stuff is actually a thing that keeps happening
> in the Tor community...
>
> In any case, I'd strongly argue that we remove BIP75 from the bips repository,
> and boycott wallets that implement it. It's bad strategy for Bitcoin developers
> to willingly participate in AML/KYC, just the same way as it's bad for Tor to
> add wiretapping functionality, and W3C to support DRM tech. The minor tactical
> wins you'll get our of this aren't worth it.
>
Exactly!
Totally agree with Peter Todd. There's absolutely no gain for Bitcoin to
willingly participate in AML/KYC. Plus this might come with strings
attached: for example when running a Tor relay in some countries if you
interfere with the traffic (censor, limit, filter, etc.) you become
responsible for it, while when you only relay anonymous traffic without
interfering or having the possibility to do so (installing certain
tools, using a modified Tor which allows you to do so, etc.) you cannot
be held responsible for the traffic.
Any kind of built-in AML/KYC tools in Bitcoin is bad, and might draw
expectations from _all_ users from authorities. Companies or individuals
who want and/or need AML/KYC can find ways and do it at their side
isolated from the entire network, and the solutions shouldn't come from
upstream. AML/KYC/<insert other regulation here> differ from country to
country and will be hard to implement in a global consensus network even
if it would be worth it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160623/3541af5b/attachment.sig>;
s7r [ARCHIVE] /
npub1j3…cwg9h
2023-06-07 17:51:24
in reply to nevent1q…zn54
Author Public Key
npub1j3u42vq63qzs2nyddgkf4s4t7pa85x855vas54e6yauxsvpf2wcsacwg9hPublished at
2023-06-07 17:51:24Event JSON
{
"id": "525d53db90a75286dc30c977da41b6d619578854437f782cd9c39adafcfeb305",
"pubkey": "947955301a8805054c8d6a2c9ac2abf07a7a18f4a33b0a573a277868302953b1",
"created_at": 1686160284,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a5039b46ff53fe0ad45fb1e565b7c7f05169b35d2126c2ee18198a6f3405f573",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4d22dc4cc7f61ba171e1d1b4b6d09bd49c0f7b97635de289e6b5b0922d19211e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3a24ce2145c5488aebfb0fc113e7d44234e9d3733afa45e2d880eb259c3eade3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-06-23\n📝 Original message:On 6/23/2016 1:56 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I don’t know if you are opposed to organizations that have AML requirements\n\u003e\u003e from using the bitcoin blockchain, but if you aren’t, why wouldn’t you\n\u003e\u003e prefer an open source, open standards based solution to exclusionary,\n\u003e\u003e proprietary ones?\n\u003e \n\u003e In some (most?) countries, it is illegal to offer telecoms services without\n\u003e wiretap facilities. Does that mean Tor builds into its software \"open source\"\n\u003e \"open standards\" wiretapping functionality? No. And interestingly, people\n\u003e trying to add support for that stuff is actually a thing that keeps happening\n\u003e in the Tor community...\n\u003e \n\u003e In any case, I'd strongly argue that we remove BIP75 from the bips repository,\n\u003e and boycott wallets that implement it. It's bad strategy for Bitcoin developers\n\u003e to willingly participate in AML/KYC, just the same way as it's bad for Tor to\n\u003e add wiretapping functionality, and W3C to support DRM tech. The minor tactical\n\u003e wins you'll get our of this aren't worth it.\n\u003e \nExactly!\nTotally agree with Peter Todd. There's absolutely no gain for Bitcoin to\nwillingly participate in AML/KYC. Plus this might come with strings\nattached: for example when running a Tor relay in some countries if you\ninterfere with the traffic (censor, limit, filter, etc.) you become\nresponsible for it, while when you only relay anonymous traffic without\ninterfering or having the possibility to do so (installing certain\ntools, using a modified Tor which allows you to do so, etc.) you cannot\nbe held responsible for the traffic.\n\nAny kind of built-in AML/KYC tools in Bitcoin is bad, and might draw\nexpectations from _all_ users from authorities. Companies or individuals\nwho want and/or need AML/KYC can find ways and do it at their side\nisolated from the entire network, and the solutions shouldn't come from\nupstream. AML/KYC/\u003cinsert other regulation here\u003e differ from country to\ncountry and will be hard to implement in a global consensus network even\nif it would be worth it.\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 488 bytes\nDesc: OpenPGP digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160623/3541af5b/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "454d6749913db230a6360a77edb7d0e0312d084173d658ef59e60e6c769747dd85809e0c0fa1b388c95be8982c0f3ada9e3db135b466e30bf9e19d127a2aee56"
}