OpenNode requires KYC now!

[finaleshot2016]

This news is very fresh and I know there's a lot of users of OpenNode;

OpenNode offers a robust platform that consists of an easy to use eCommerce and retail plug-in solution, payment infrastructure API's for developers, and the fastest payment processor limits to allow for brand new payment models and instantaneous settlements.

OpenNode was known as bitcoin payment gateway through blockchain or lightning network
But lately, they are requiring KYC now to their users for them to withdraw their money. We all know that most of us disagree by putting KYC on every platform we're in.

So there's a lot of users of opennode who bypassed the platform to withdraw their money. Just by filling the Welcome Back Screen, you can now access the platform and withdraw all of your money in there.

We're giving people time to submit their information. Meanwhile, your account is operational and allows you to withdraw all your funds without submitting any documents, just fill the Welcome Back screen.

It's temporary only and if you knew that you're one of those users of opennode, withdraw it now.

[1714860127]

1714860127

[1714860127]

1714860127

[1714860127]

1714860127

[1714860127]

1714860127

[Artemis3]

The only way you can set up a service without kyc/aml is if you set it up as a hidden resource in tor or equivalent "darknet" site, or something entirely p2p like Bisq which uses tor hidden service for publishing.

The only place you could still set up services like that without kyc is in an unregulated country, which will no doubt get pressured to adopt regulations anyway.

In such site only the community itself can patrol funds origin, and you could end buying "tainted coins" (ie. stolen from an exchange/phished wallet).

Interesting times indeed...

[Jonyshake71]

I must say "Thank you" for your kind information. Kyc Means I've to submit my personal documents to them! Although  I don't like that process at all as because they can misuse those documents but Whatever, people already have done kyc for bounty token, exchanges & Others. So i don't think it is any matter of wonder if  OpenNode requires KYC 

[OmegaStarScream]

Payment processors are not getting any better for both the merchants and users, not sure why would anyone use them at this point. instead of using third party service to accept payments from your clients, you could set up your own server, node and use BTCPayServer and the problem is solved.

[Lauren Smith]

The only way you can set up a service without kyc/aml is if you set it up as a hidden resource in tor or equivalent "darknet" site, or something entirely p2p like Bisq which uses tor hidden service for publishing.

The only place you could still set up services like that without kyc is in an unregulated country, which will no doubt get pressured to adopt regulations anyway.

In such site only the community itself can patrol funds origin, and you could end buying "tainted coins" (ie. stolen from an exchange/phished wallet).

Interesting times indeed...

Stop spreading misinformation. KYC is a thing made by paranoid people to extract personal info under the guise of protection. You just saying stuff but have nothing to back it up with. Are you some sort of lawyer or professional in this field to be making such vast claims.

No one ever needs your KYC the entire thing is bs and directly supports crime not oppose it. You talk of the dark web. Go look how much KYC stuff is for sale there. IT just makes peoples KYC into a commodity and criminals will thrive off of it by steal trading and otherwise abusing it. Without KYC they would have no access to this info.

[finaleshot2016]

The only way you can set up a service without kyc/aml is if you set it up as a hidden resource in tor or equivalent "darknet" site, or something entirely p2p like Bisq which uses tor hidden service for publishing.

The only place you could still set up services like that without kyc is in an unregulated country, which will no doubt get pressured to adopt regulations anyway.

In such site only the community itself can patrol funds origin, and you could end buying "tainted coins" (ie. stolen from an exchange/phished wallet).

Interesting times indeed...

There are other Bitcoin payment gateways that don't require KYC.
Like what @OmegaStarScream, BTCPay is the one that's leading due to OpenNode's downfall.

Bitpay was also a choice but there's also an issue regarding their platform.
You can read it in here; https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/cu8wcv/amazon_watch_just_lost_a_100k_bitcoin_donation/

[squatter]

Another one bites the dust.

Unlike BitPay's recent changes, it looks like this only applies to merchants/vendors. According to OpenNode's terms, they put the legal burden of verifying customer identity solely on the client. So at least there's no KYC for customers who are buying goods and services:

For each transaction, You bear sole responsibility for confirming (a) Your customer’s identity and payment information, (b) Your receipt of payment in full, and (c) that payment was made according to the instructions given through Platform. You represent, warrant and covenant that You will not make, provide, receive or attempt to make, provide, or receive payments from or to any person or Entity that is (x) a third-party, other than Your customer or (y) currently subject to any U.S. sanctions administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Treasury Department.

Payment processors are not getting any better for both the merchants and users, not sure why would anyone use them at this point. instead of using third party service to accept payments from your clients, you could set up your own server, node and use BTCPayServer and the problem is solved.

Indeed. Payment processors are going to implement KYC one by one. I'm hoping this starts incentivizing people to use BTCPayServer rather than centralized third parties.

[pooya87]

Payment processors are not getting any better for both the merchants and users, not sure why would anyone use them at this point.

payment processors should be used for when the merchants want to deal with fiat not bitcoin directly so that they could mitigate the volatility. that is why they are still using them to this day. otherwise if they are going to just get paid in bitcoin and receive bitcoin, they shouldn't have used a payment processor in first place!
and since when fiat is involved KYC is expected and there shouldn't be any complains about it in my opinion.

[avikz]

Contrary to a lot of people here, I would welcome such steps taken by legal merchants and businesses. Because legal businesses are bound to the comply with the local laws and regulations. Also I don't understand why would anyone resist such KYC requirement if that particular individual isn't doing anything illegal. If I have a t-shirt store today and my payment settlement provider is asking for KYC, why would I deny the request and take my business elsewhere?? What's the problem in here??

[cizatext]

The only way you can set up a service without kyc/aml is if you set it up as a hidden resource in tor or equivalent "darknet" site, or something entirely p2p like Bisq which uses tor hidden service for publishing.

The only place you could still set up services like that without kyc is in an unregulated country, which will no doubt get pressured to adopt regulations anyway.

In such site only the community itself can patrol funds origin, and you could end buying "tainted coins" (ie. stolen from an exchange/phished wallet).

Interesting times indeed...

Stop spreading misinformation. KYC is a thing made by paranoid people to extract personal info under the guise of protection. You just saying stuff but have nothing to back it up with. Are you some sort of lawyer or professional in this field to be making such vast claims.

No one ever needs your KYC the entire thing is bs and directly supports crime not oppose it. You talk of the dark web. Go look how much KYC stuff is for sale there. IT just makes peoples KYC into a commodity and criminals will thrive off of it by steal trading and otherwise abusing it. Without KYC they would have no access to this info.

You are very correct the dev should stop the misinformation because what he is saying has nothing to back it up and again am highly in support of kyc because it allow exchanges and other crypto sites to monitor their customers transactions.

[bitbunnny]

Contrary to a lot of people here, I would welcome such steps taken by legal merchants and businesses. Because legal businesses are bound to the comply with the local laws and regulations. Also I don't understand why would anyone resist such KYC requirement if that particular individual isn't doing anything illegal. If I have a t-shirt store today and my payment settlement provider is asking for KYC, why would I deny the request and take my business elsewhere?? What's the problem in here??

I have to say that I completely agree. It's sad that many users don't understand that KYC is actually designed for their protection not against them.
Also, in order to run legitimate business crypto related services must performe KYC. And I don't understand why would some user want to do business with some exchange or other service that is not compliant with the law, at the end this might have bad consequences. But people obviously don't have a broader picture.

[Upgrade00]

It's sad that many users don't understand that KYC is actually designed for their protection not against them.

It may have something to do with the possible misappropriation of their documents and risk it poses to their privacy.
There has been any cases of hack on websites, and users documents can be sold in case of such an occurrence and used wrongfully. Even too exchanges has been compromised at some point and in addition to the loss of funds KYC documents can as well be stolen.

And on the issue of it stopping fraud, it is not really a stringent measure as it can be bypassed by the perpetrators.

[DooMAD]

Contrary to a lot of people here, I would welcome such steps taken by legal merchants and businesses. Because legal businesses are bound to the comply with the local laws and regulations. Also I don't understand why would anyone resist such KYC requirement if that particular individual isn't doing anything illegal. If I have a t-shirt store today and my payment settlement provider is asking for KYC, why would I deny the request and take my business elsewhere?? What's the problem in here??

I have to say that I completely agree. It's sad that many users don't understand that KYC is actually designed for their protection not against them.

If the design worked, then absolutely.  But the design is deeply flawed and probably causes more identity theft than it prevents.  How many of these incidents would have been far less serious if it wasn't a legal requirement to hold all that data?  Creating vast treasure troves for criminals to plunder is utterly stupid.

[finaleshot2016]

Contrary to a lot of people here, I would welcome such steps taken by legal merchants and businesses. Because legal businesses are bound to the comply with the local laws and regulations. Also I don't understand why would anyone resist such KYC requirement if that particular individual isn't doing anything illegal. If I have a t-shirt store today and my payment settlement provider is asking for KYC, why would I deny the request and take my business elsewhere?? What's the problem in here??

I have to say that I completely agree. It's sad that many users don't understand that KYC is actually designed for their protection not against them.

If the design worked, then absolutely.  But the design is deeply flawed and probably causes more identity theft than it prevents.  How many of these incidents would have been far less serious if it wasn't a legal requirement to hold all that data?  Creating vast treasure troves for criminals to plunder is utterly stupid.

It's kinda risky especially when you're a big company. You've got a point but you didn't think about the individual users who use gateways for their businesses. The platform might see it as an opportunity for them, even you have bad intentions, it's still risky for the individuals to send their private information.

If you're talking about business, big companies are trying to negotiate with gateways personally, so there's no problem with that and no confidential information will be given because contracts are existing while in the individual users, it's very unfair for them.

[Artemis3]

Contrary to a lot of people here, I would welcome such steps taken by legal merchants and businesses. Because legal businesses are bound to the comply with the local laws and regulations. Also I don't understand why would anyone resist such KYC requirement if that particular individual isn't doing anything illegal. If I have a t-shirt store today and my payment settlement provider is asking for KYC, why would I deny the request and take my business elsewhere?? What's the problem in here??

I have to say that I completely agree. It's sad that many users don't understand that KYC is actually designed for their protection not against them.

If the design worked, then absolutely.  But the design is deeply flawed and probably causes more identity theft than it prevents.  How many of these incidents would have been far less serious if it wasn't a legal requirement to hold all that data?  Creating vast treasure troves for criminals to plunder is utterly stupid.

KYC is something that is being imposed by governments, i doubt many site operators would bother with the annoyance otherwise. Localbitcoins is already on a countdown to freeze accounts without the KYC thing done (They extended the date to Oct 1), and they use a third party to handle that.

Regardless of what you like or not, that is the reality. They have the power to go after site operators, unless they anonymize completely, like the Bitcoin author did. Same as centralized coins, they can be shutdown at any moment if they are not fully p2p decentralized. In hostile countries, they can also go after the peers, which is why you need the anonymity and obfuscation so survive operating a site like that.

Of course it doesn't work, of course there is a ton of identity data theft, but the stubborn lawmakers don't get it, and those are imposing the rules.

[fiulpro]

I don't think there is any problem with the KYC since it is somehow necessary , the problems regarding bitcoins is rising and therefore governments are getting strict I don't think not doing KYC is even an option for them.
If you give your information to someone then you for sure won't try and do stupid things , end of the story , people should understand that it can actually help to keep a database of every user and track the activities.
KYC is important.

[finaleshot2016]

I don't think there is any problem with the KYC since it is somehow necessary , the problems regarding bitcoins is rising and therefore governments are getting strict I don't think not doing KYC is even an option for them.
If you give your information to someone then you for sure won't try and do stupid things , end of the story , people should understand that it can actually help to keep a database of every user and track the activities.
KYC is important.

Necessary for business only right?

I mean there's a lot of people who hide their personalities because it's very dangerous for them if they hold a lot of money. How can you trust the platform? If this is a local platform then I gladly do KYC because it's a trusted platform that is designated and exclusive for our country if not then it's dangerous to risk your personal information.

Try to check the disadvantages of sending personal information in a platform even you have good intentions.
If someone doesn't like KYC, it doesn't mean they're doing something wrong, that's a fact we should remember.  

[figmentofmyass]

Contrary to a lot of people here, I would welcome such steps taken by legal merchants and businesses. Because legal businesses are bound to the comply with the local laws and regulations. Also I don't understand why would anyone resist such KYC requirement if that particular individual isn't doing anything illegal. If I have a t-shirt store today and my payment settlement provider is asking for KYC, why would I deny the request and take my business elsewhere?? What's the problem in here??

this is basically the "nothing to hide argument". there are a number of problems with it. read about them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument#Against_the_argument

i quite like this position:

First, if individuals have privacy rights, then invoking "nothing to hide" is irrelevant. Privacy, understood as a right to control access to and uses of spaces, locations, and personal information, means that it is the right holder who determines access. To drive this point home Moore offers the following case. "Imagine upon exiting your house one day you find a person searching through your trash painstakingly putting the shredded notes and documents back together. In response to your stunned silence he proclaims 'you don’t have anything to worry about – there is no reason to hide, is there?'" Second, individuals may wish to hide embarrassing behavior or conduct not accepted by the dominant culture. "Consider someone’s sexual or medical history. Imagine someone visiting a library to learn about alternative lifestyles not accepted by the majority." Finally, Moore argues that "nothing to hide," if taken seriously, could be used against government agents, politicians, and CEO's. This is to turn the “nothing to hide” argument on its head. Moore argues that the NSA agent, politician, police chief, and CEO have nothing to hide so they should embrace total transparency like the rest of us. "But they don’t and when given the technological tools to watch, the politician, police chief, or CEO are almost always convinced that watching others is a good thing."

why volunteer to give up your privacy when it's never been necessary before? how about the risk of 3rd party compromise of your data, which happens literally every day now? why do government/police have us regular folks under surveillance but we know nothing about them?

and then there's this:

Harvey A. Silverglate estimated that the common person, on average, unknowingly commits three felonies a day in the US.

i hope the government isn't watching you too closely, avikz!

[Kakmakr]

Most services start out with noble intentions of being open-minded to the needs of financial privacy of their customers or users, but when they acquired enough customers or clients, they change their business model and also the thing that brought these customers or users to their platform.   

People use that service, because they want to protect their financial privacy, and when you take that feature away, they will move to the next service that offers them that feature. <Where are the competition for this service?>

[FIFA worldcup]

This news is very fresh and I know there's a lot of users of OpenNode;

OpenNode offers a robust platform that consists of an easy to use eCommerce and retail plug-in solution, payment infrastructure API's for developers, and the fastest payment processor limits to allow for brand new payment models and instantaneous settlements.

OpenNode was known as bitcoin payment gateway through blockchain or lightning network
But lately, they are requiring KYC now to their users for them to withdraw their money. We all know that most of us disagree by putting KYC on every platform we're in.

So there's a lot of users of opennode who bypassed the platform to withdraw their money. Just by filling the Welcome Back Screen, you can now access the platform and withdraw all of your money in there.

We're giving people time to submit their information. Meanwhile, your account is operational and allows you to withdraw all your funds without submitting any documents, just fill the Welcome Back screen.

It's temporary only and if you knew that you're one of those users of opennode, withdraw it now.

Many companies are now enforcing the kyc and this trend will increase more and more. Even i saw that local bitcoin is making it compulsory for its users to do a Tier 1 verification by  a certain date else there account will be disabled. This is because of the regulations which are coming up in crypto.