Crypto Currencies Privacy

[BIT-BENDER]

We value our own privacy but the big businesses/exchanges, we can't do nothing against them if they're implementing such policies. Yeah, there are the other decentralized exchanges where we can trade freely.

But it is that, we have our own preferences and some may say that they don't like it and they're more comfortable using services that compromises their privacy like the usual thing we encounter, KYC.

Well the big exchanges are meant to know what the core values of  Crypto-currency which privacy is one of them. In as much as I don't have any criminal reasons for choosing to support privacy, the internet is a wide ecosystem and many people identity they put out during procedures like Kyc verification can find it's way into the wrong hand and who knows what it may be used for.

And funny enough many exchange that has been attacked recently are mostly centralized exchange so not only are they compromising peoples privacy they are actually not secured. I can advise Newbies and inexperience members to adopt using Private wallet in saving your Crypto-currency.

[Xal0lex]

It doesn't work that way, you'll have to choose one thing. If you want privacy for all crypto-users, welcome to the underground. Unrecognized coins, use only on the darknet or among themselves, low prices, low distribution, but all private and anonymous.

If you want adopsion, distribution of cryptocurrencies, high prices, widespread use and the ability to pay with cryptocurrency in many services and stores, then welcome to regulated space, where there will be AML, where there will be KYC, where there will be oversight and regulation. You can't combine anonymity and ubiquitous use, it's too utopian a vision, alas.

You are correct in this reasoning. A high degree of anonymity is very attractive to hackers and various scammers. Anonymity significantly increases the risks in the cryptocurrency market. Therefore, reasonable regulation of cryptocurrencies by states is necessary and useful.
On the other hand, states cannot allow significant amounts of money to circulate on their territory that they cannot control. Therefore, cryptocurrencies will eventually either be regulated or banned.

The cryptocurrency industry is in a very bad place. On the one hand, in order to continue to integrate into the lives of most people and traditional finance, it needs regulation and a regulatory framework. On the other hand, the basic principles of cryptocurrencies are built on decentralization, absence of third parties and freedom from governments, regulators, bankers, etc. Is there a middle ground in the further development of cryptocurrencies, I think not. Cryptocurrencies will be completely absorbed by regulators and governments, and there will be no trace of the true principles of cryptocurrencies.

[Silberman]

It doesn't work that way, you'll have to choose one thing. If you want privacy for all crypto-users, welcome to the underground. Unrecognized coins, use only on the darknet or among themselves, low prices, low distribution, but all private and anonymous.

If you want adopsion, distribution of cryptocurrencies, high prices, widespread use and the ability to pay with cryptocurrency in many services and stores, then welcome to regulated space, where there will be AML, where there will be KYC, where there will be oversight and regulation. You can't combine anonymity and ubiquitous use, it's too utopian a vision, alas.

You are correct in this reasoning. A high degree of anonymity is very attractive to hackers and various scammers. Anonymity significantly increases the risks in the cryptocurrency market. Therefore, reasonable regulation of cryptocurrencies by states is necessary and useful.
On the other hand, states cannot allow significant amounts of money to circulate on their territory that they cannot control. Therefore, cryptocurrencies will eventually either be regulated or banned.

The cryptocurrency industry is in a very bad place. On the one hand, in order to continue to integrate into the lives of most people and traditional finance, it needs regulation and a regulatory framework. On the other hand, the basic principles of cryptocurrencies are built on decentralization, absence of third parties and freedom from governments, regulators, bankers, etc. Is there a middle ground in the further development of cryptocurrencies, I think not. Cryptocurrencies will be completely absorbed by regulators and governments, and there will be no trace of the true principles of cryptocurrencies.

This is without doubt the biggest risk for true decentralized coins, the only way to avoid this fate is that before this market is fully absorbed by governments and banks that people realized as a whole that a system that is so centralized is a risk to their financial well being, however such a thing cannot be achieved by trying to teach people about why decentralization is better, what we need is a collapse of the current system and a crisis so large that people wake up and begin to look for answers about why they lost so much of their wealth and how to prevent this in the future.

[Xal0lex]

It doesn't work that way, you'll have to choose one thing. If you want privacy for all crypto-users, welcome to the underground. Unrecognized coins, use only on the darknet or among themselves, low prices, low distribution, but all private and anonymous.

If you want adopsion, distribution of cryptocurrencies, high prices, widespread use and the ability to pay with cryptocurrency in many services and stores, then welcome to regulated space, where there will be AML, where there will be KYC, where there will be oversight and regulation. You can't combine anonymity and ubiquitous use, it's too utopian a vision, alas.

You are correct in this reasoning. A high degree of anonymity is very attractive to hackers and various scammers. Anonymity significantly increases the risks in the cryptocurrency market. Therefore, reasonable regulation of cryptocurrencies by states is necessary and useful.
On the other hand, states cannot allow significant amounts of money to circulate on their territory that they cannot control. Therefore, cryptocurrencies will eventually either be regulated or banned.

The cryptocurrency industry is in a very bad place. On the one hand, in order to continue to integrate into the lives of most people and traditional finance, it needs regulation and a regulatory framework. On the other hand, the basic principles of cryptocurrencies are built on decentralization, absence of third parties and freedom from governments, regulators, bankers, etc. Is there a middle ground in the further development of cryptocurrencies, I think not. Cryptocurrencies will be completely absorbed by regulators and governments, and there will be no trace of the true principles of cryptocurrencies.

This is without doubt the biggest risk for true decentralized coins, the only way to avoid this fate is that before this market is fully absorbed by governments and banks that people realized as a whole that a system that is so centralized is a risk to their financial well being, however such a thing cannot be achieved by trying to teach people about why decentralization is better, what we need is a collapse of the current system and a crisis so large that people wake up and begin to look for answers about why they lost so much of their wealth and how to prevent this in the future.

It is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. I am not sure it can happen even in this century. In fact, at the moment, there is no decentralization in the cryptocurrency sphere. PoS coins, even from the DeFi category, they are all centralized. The control tokens in such systems have a completely uneven distribution, otherwise how do you explain the fact that in some protocols 90% of the votes may belong to 1 or more addresses. All this is far from the notion of true decentralization. In cryptocurrency, it also comes down to the principle that the more coins you have, the more influence you have.

[TheGreatPython]

there are a lot of people in crypto now who don't understand the importance of censorship resistance and who don't care that crypto should be for everyone they think criminals should be punished they think that they should be sacrificing their privacy and everyone's privacy for the sake of trying to punish criminals exist everywhere.

The War of crypto has begun um so in my opinion I think anonymity and privacy online should be highly valued and practised by anyone to the best of ability who is interacting with cryptocurrencies.

You are right and that's because most of them focus only on the earning part of crypto in which they buy, hodl and sell. Those who care about privacy are the people who use crypto as a currency. Crypto is for everyone but not for the criminals because they will only use their crypto for wrong doings and this can affect the reputation of crypto.

Every crypto users don't want that to happen but if it's inevitable then we should only watch out for the criminals and punished them accordingly to what or how big the damage they have dealt. We can do this without the need of sacrificing our privacy but even if we do, then it's not a big deal at all because we know that we did it on purpose.

[merekamo]

Concept of anonymous in crypto is the technologies underlying crypto are decentralized, meaning that they are not owned or controlled by any one group or individual. This means open and free to anyone who wants to use them.

I'am against the idea that crypto should be regulated through KYC/AML laws, or that crypto should be used to track criminals because it always causes innocent people to get hurt.

So, In simple word when people think of cryptocurrency, they tend to think of a store of value or a means of exchange. Even those who might not understand how it works or how it can benefit them.

[ningrum]

Anonymity and privacy online should really be valued but you cannot push your stance of not submitting your personal information if the government abiding CEX and legit platforms asked you to submit KYC if you are using the platform and have your funds in it.

Anyone can keep their own privacy easily but again this all actually depends on so many factors that can makes privacy can be valued or not. People were talking about the privacy and anonymity but they were actively using centralized exchange site that was forcing the users to complete KYC verification and what's the difference? I meant that's the point.

KYC verification for exchange I think there is no problem if the exchange is verified in the country,
but if not then it can be dangerous, especially if a project asks for KYC I think you should avoid it,
because we can't avoid it then we ourselves have to be careful Be careful to be able to maintain own privacy.