Kyc is deceitful if ignorant of the bad side

[Pmalek]

But I also very often come across statements from those who claim that they have nothing to hide, and therefore they are not afraid to go through KYC and share their documents everywhere.

That is like standing in a crowded area screaming I am a millionaire. I made my money in a legit way and I have nothing to hide. Come visit me anytime you want! You never know who might hear you and what intentions that someone might have. It's the same with KYC data. You submit it with good intentions, but you can't know what the person on the other side will do with it. Even if it won't be used for something bad by them, there is always the possibility of hacks and data leaks.   

[qwertyup23]

I agree, KYC is evil and should be avoided at all costs!!   

Sooner or later all the information you provide to these exchanges is going to get sold on black market.

Then someone else will use your credentials to perform online operations.

And if so happens that they do anything illegal.

Your data will be attached to it and you'll end up in much trouble.

So, just please stop using exchanges/services with KYC.

The problem of KYC stems from providing your personal information to a third-party website that has full control over your records. In the event that such website takes advantage of your personal data, you are at the constant risk of having identity theft or information fraud in the black market.

On the other hand, KYC also protects the establishment in providing security to their database. Though many have argued against the usage of such, there must be a line drawn on how KYC could be balanced that will be advantageous to both parties.

[Upgrade00]

The problem of KYC stems from providing your personal information to a third-party website that has full control over your records. In the event that such website takes advantage of your personal data, you are at the constant risk of having identity theft or information fraud in the black market.

Identity theft is just one of the problems. The government agencies having full access to your transactions takes away pseudo anonymity, which is one of the qualities of Bitcoin.

On the other hand, KYC also protects the establishment in providing security to their database. Though many have argued against the usage of such, there must be a line drawn on how KYC could be balanced that will be advantageous to both parties.

How does KYC provide security to a database or protect an establishment? It just benefits the government who impose the regulations on centralized agencies. There are Dexes which function without the need for personal information of its users without security issues.
A perfect balance would be to use KYC for regulated currencies and none for cryptocurrencies.

[witcher_sense]

On the other hand, KYC also protects the establishment in providing security to their database. Though many have argued against the usage of such, there must be a line drawn on how KYC could be balanced that will be advantageous to both parties.

Has there ever been a case where the collecting of the personal information of customers would have a positive impact on the security of the system? To my view, you are going to be better off if there is less information to share with an attacker. An attacker himself is not going to go through KYC procedures at least with his real identity, so it doesn't make sense to assert that KYC is helping to catch criminals. No, it is not. What it does is that it helps to control honest users who have never thought of doing money laundering. KYC protects neither the system nor the users of the system. It rather protects the owners of the system from being accused of poor prevention of money laundering or, more accurately, poor control of who can interact with money.

[Anguwa]

This is very great advice, many people are out there just willing to scam innocent individuals, such advices need to be taken into consideration. As technology is advancing on a daily basis, plenty ways to scam individuals is also increasing. Buying accounts of a centralized exchange is very risk, because you can not defend the account, at the same time, if problems are encountered and you are asked to provide some of your identity, what you have will not match what was used, so you have loosing everything entirely, so let's be cautious.

[Charles-Tim]

On the other hand, KYC also protects the establishment in providing security to their database. Though many have argued against the usage of such, there must be a line drawn on how KYC could be balanced that will be advantageous to both parties.

How does KYC provide security to a database or protect an establishment? It just benefits the government who impose the regulations on centralized agencies.

That post you quoted is absolutely a spam in my opinion, how can KYC protect database which is not possible and will never be possible. So far KYC can be a means governments can identify people, also hackers and other bad actors can use it usefully to sight people to become their victims, while the governments will more make use of it for tax purposes. But what we are more careful about is to avoid scammers.

[Oceat]

KYC sucks to be honest and why would people proceed to follow the KYC when in the first place the exchange itself is having a full control of your account/funds already? It just makes it easier for the hacker to get to your account once the exchange is getting hacked and don't expect that your name would be safe if they sell those personal information on the black market. Scammers/hackers nowadays are getting smarter and smarter just to gain access to others people account/funds. I hope exchange would do something to protect also their customers not just only themselves.

[Peanutswar]

KYC is one of the most important layers of security for a platform to make sure their users do not have any kind of illegal activities and spam some people want to keep themselves anonymous and prevent the use of any kind of KYC in a platform. Selling your information is the most crucial part than having a small amount of payment it can be used as identity theft. this is the reason why we don't tolerate buying accounts with the use of others name. In some part we cannot remove this kind of buying accounts this is the way of their earning i guess exchange must need to have a monthly verification on it to prevent spam accounts.

[Stanlo]

I believe crypto space have grown up to the stage where everyone is entitled to choose any part they want, it's why we have Dex and Cex around right now, if you have anything against KYC then use Dex, as for me KYC is pretty good and necessary for half part of crypto future, why? The more crypto grows the more we will have bad actors in the space, we all think KYC is useless but it's really not if the platform is reliable like binance and as for those buying KYC aka identity cards and co. you can easily get yourself penalize

[Mpamaegbu]

* If one uses his own data for KYC, bad actors may sell it for various uses, some good, some very bad (one worse case can be even getting loans from bank in your name)

Well, I'm thinking hard how that loan part with someone else's KYC can be possible, with documents that aren't credit card. I mean, if one submits government documents and another tenders them to get a loan, there should be a picture there on the document of course. At least, I know passports and national IDs have them. Isn't it? Even cashing out money at a bank doesn't come that easy let alone getting a loan. The screening is always stringent. To me, except a bank is unscrupulous and involved in the racket there's no way someone else can get a loan with another person's documents at a bank. Again, won't the bank match the loan seeker's signature with the signature used in opening the account with them that it has on its computer? If there are properties as collateral, in whose name are they registered?

Kyc is not mandatory so far you do not use the exchanges that are demanding for kyc, so implying it is mandatory in this regard is not absolutely correct, but only mandatory on the exchanges that are enforcing it, but not still necessary to use such exchanges.

In order not to sound remote (while recognizing that this thread isn't about KYC being compulsory or not), let me quickly ask you – would you rather trade at an average exchange not requiring KYC or a more trusted one requiring KYC?

[Charles-Tim]

In order not to sound remote (while recognizing that this thread isn't about KYC being compulsory or not), let me quickly ask you – would you rather trade at an average exchange not requiring KYC or a more trusted one requiring KYC?

For privacy and anonymity, the best is to use a decentralized exchange like Bisq, Hodlhold or Localcryptos. Making use of centralized exchanges will make privacy not to exist for the user as they (centralized exchanges) are privacy-depriving platforms.

But about your question, this is good to read, with different veteran members sharing their opinions: Privacy vs. anonymity

[suzanne5223]

I agree, KYC is evil and should be avoided at all costs!!   

Sooner or later all the information you provide to these exchanges is going to get sold on black market.

Then someone else will use your credentials to perform online operations.

And if so happens that they do anything illegal.

Your data will be attached to it and you'll end up in much trouble.

So, just please stop using exchanges/services with KYC.

Let us face the truth. We pray for Bitcoin to be the mainstream of payment while our government believed in centralization way of governing and we the crypto community rely on decentralization. They said two wrongs cant make a right, if we want Bitcoin to be mainstream of payment then there's no way we can avoid KYC totally though the KYC shouldn't have been like this is the online theft don't abuse the potential of cryptocurrency.