What would be an ideal KYC solution?

[Silberman]

Unfortunately there is no other option that makes any sense for the gamblers, as much as we would like for this to not be the case it is not possible anymore, the gambling industry is huge and the governments cannot afford to ignore it anymore, especially now that they need all the money they can get due to the difficult economic circumstances they are facing, now some gamblers may try their luck with unlicensed casinos but that decision has its own fair share of problems.

That's so true, but try to tell that to Sweden and Poland, they are still a hard nut to crack, they just don't want to open up for this industry :/ Maybe once this generation of politicians exchange. 

I have always thought that we need in fact a generational change in order for bitcoin and altcoins to really become as widely adopted as we want, the oldest people I know do not trust banks and prefer to keep their savings in gold, then the next generations that came after them disregarded gold and instead put all their trust in banks and fiat money, and now we are suffering the consequences of that mistake, while younger generations also distrust banks but instead of going for gold they think bitcoin is the solution they have been looking for.

[Rengga Jati]

The side of the casino:

One more, they will always say that they must ensure that their users are not from certain restricted countries to make them safe. However, this may not be the main reason.

If comparing the pros and cons of doing KYC and not, it will never end, moreover if we are talking about the centralized casino. although they always say that they are high in privacy, when they are asking for KYC this means that they are not dealing with privacy. However, we don't know if they are really trusted enough or not in keeping safe our data. I really hate sending photos of my identity and my face to the KYC identification because this is too private. But sometimes, we don't have the choice to pick the best casino to have. Once more, they will not give us the solution that the term and condition may make the suers afraid to continue.

[alegotardo]

[...]

What would, in your opinion, be the best balance here?

The KYC and use of currencies that value the user's privacy depends a lot on the region/country where the casino will be opened.

I am sure that casinos, if they could choose, would not implement KYC or restrict the use of certain cryptocurrencies, the ones who push for this regulation are the governments, because they know that casinos (especially online ones) are very used to commit money laundering, tax evasion and covering up other crimes.

Unfortunately, those who suffer from this are the users.

I believe that KYC should only be mandatory for users who want to withdraw a large amount, and even then it should be enforced with great caution.
As for users who just use the casino for fun, making contributions and spending everything on the game itself, there is no reason to require KYC... these users are just consuming a service.

[Jawhead999]

If I remember right, Stake is set at 1,5 BTC lifetime withdrawal limit, once that is reached, the KYC is triggered. But don't take my word for it, it has been a while since my research.

While Freebitco.in woudn't ask you to provide KYC regardless how much you made deposit, withdrawal or winnings from this casino

If you're want to gamble on reputable zero KYC casino, only Freebitco.in is the best choice. You can read on their TOS and you wouldn't find any rule about mandatory KYC. As long as you're not cheating or use other suspicious gambling bots, your account will be fine. Because if you did that, your account will get terminated.

[ethereumhunter]

[...]

What would, in your opinion, be the best balance here?

The KYC and use of currencies that value the user's privacy depends a lot on the region/country where the casino will be opened.

I am sure that casinos, if they could choose, would not implement KYC or restrict the use of certain cryptocurrencies, the ones who push for this regulation are the governments, because they know that casinos (especially online ones) are very used to commit money laundering, tax evasion and covering up other crimes.

Unfortunately, those who suffer from this are the users.

I believe that KYC should only be mandatory for users who want to withdraw a large amount, and even then it should be enforced with great caution.
As for users who just use the casino for fun, making contributions and spending everything on the game itself, there is no reason to require KYC... these users are just consuming a service.

Crypto casinos will not implement KYC because of regulations from regulators that make casinos follow these rules. While this may be tough for crypto casinos, they are trying to comply with the rules. And crypto casinos still give freedom to crypto users not to do KYC in full or more detail for users who bet using small money.

But it's different if you are a big player and often spend a lot of money gambling. Depending on how you use the money to gamble, crypto casinos may ask you to KYC.

[Wind_FURY]

But THERE IS a solution, just like Bitcoin was designed to give the user the capability to go around regulations, building a casino to process its transactions directly onchain can also give the casinos the same regulation-avoiding capabilities.

DirectBet was a true onchain Bitcoin casino. The was user never requires to make an account, or required to make a deposit. Everything was done onchain. Although, it was slow and inefficient during high network congestion. I would like to see it built on "faster" blockchains, like Litecoin/Dogecoin.

Well, what can you say if they are not like that?. I didn't read somewhere on the site that they are on-chain. Most of the casinos I know are not like that where you deposited any amount but your account already have balance meanwhile the transaction is not yet confirmed or the site requires more than 1 confirmation needed before the balance is there. Many gambling sites use that method so that their gamblers won't have to wait for confirmations before their balance shows up in their account and in withdrawals won't be a problem since it's going to the gambler's wallet.

Ser, DirectBet was one of the old casinos in Bitcoin, but they already closed during 2017 before you registered your account. You can read their announcement thread, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=393147.0

They were the only on-chain casino that didn't require the user to open an account, didn't require to deposit their coins, and definitely didn't require KYC. It was truly a censorship-resistant casino built on top of the Bitcoin blockchain. It was probably inefficient, and slow when the network was congested, but it was working.

[Ghostnipple]

The big issue is that thousands of players are currently being coerced into handing over valuable personal data to anonymous individuals who take that data and move it to jurisdictions where it has no legal protection.

The data can be packaged into tranches and sold on to multiple buyers. Those buyers can then sell that data on again to other buyers. The victims have lost complete control of their own personal data and both they and their families have to deal with the negative consequences for the rest of their life, or longer.

[nakamura12]

Well, what can you say if they are not like that?

Ser, DirectBet was one of the old casinos in Bitcoin, but they already closed during 2017 before you registered your account. You can read their announcement thread, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=393147.0

They were the only on-chain casino that didn't require the user to open an account, didn't require to deposit their coins, and definitely didn't require KYC. It was truly a censorship-resistant casino built on top of the Bitcoin blockchain. It was probably inefficient, and slow when the network was congested, but it was working.

Not to make this reply a bit off topic but I am not talking about directbet not being an on-chain casino. That question is for a casino that what if it is not an on-chain casino and in this case, what if directbet is not an on-chain casino?. I don't need to read their ann thread since I am asking all about the site more like a KYC of some sort. I know you will be confused as what KYC I really mean and it's not Know Your Customer but Know Your Casino. That's the reason why I ask a question and not about me saying that directbet is not an on-chain casino. What can you say or your opinion if directbet is not an on-chain casino?.
That's what I really want you to answer as shown in the quote.

[darkangel11]

The big issue is that thousands of players are currently being coerced into handing over valuable personal data to anonymous individuals who take that data and move it to jurisdictions where it has no legal protection.

The data can be packaged into tranches and sold on to multiple buyers. Those buyers can then sell that data on again to other buyers. The victims have lost complete control of their own personal data and both they and their families have to deal with the negative consequences for the rest of their life, or longer.

That's why casinos should be transparent and always make it clear that they intend to do KYC. If users knew that their funds can be blocked if they don't submit documents, many wouldn't deposit anything because KYC is still a grey zone. It's that line many of us don't want to cross. Casinos know about it and they will obfuscate their rules and regulations to make people play and they'll start demanding KYC when a user wins some money. As long as people lose money, there's no KYC and everything is good.

IMO that's abuse and casinos that do it should be avoided.

[Hispo]

The big issue is that thousands of players are currently being coerced into handing over valuable personal data to anonymous individuals who take that data and move it to jurisdictions where it has no legal protection.

The data can be packaged into tranches and sold on to multiple buyers. Those buyers can then sell that data on again to other buyers. The victims have lost complete control of their own personal data and both they and their families have to deal with the negative consequences for the rest of their life, or longer.

It depends on the jurisdiction the casino operates in, but it is true what you say, it is very easy nowadays to lose control over one's personal information. This applies not only to casinos for mostly all kind of services that have anything to do with money or crypto.

That is why I would recommend people (who care about the management of their information) to check where the casino is registered, where it operates from and read the Terms of services or a summary of it.

[karabiber]

It is very difficult to find the balance when it comes to KYC. It's normal for casino owners to persistently ask for KYC. Because in a possible lawsuit and court case (illegal money) they must have documents that they would like to defend themselves. Of course, from the perspective of both sides, both sides have their disadvantage. Requesting KYC, especially at crypto casinos will reduce gambling traffic and revenues will drop. The casino owner doesn't want that either. However, in this case, he takes all the risks. A casino that requests KYC has to present its licenses and necessary documents to the user to indicate its reliability. The casino requesting KYC must enter into a contract with the user and must contractually undertake that it will not give the KYC to third parties in any way. Finally if you are trading with CEX you have to do KYC.

[Wind_FURY]

Well, what can you say if they are not like that?

Ser, DirectBet was one of the old casinos in Bitcoin, but they already closed during 2017 before you registered your account. You can read their announcement thread, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=393147.0

They were the only on-chain casino that didn't require the user to open an account, didn't require to deposit their coins, and definitely didn't require KYC. It was truly a censorship-resistant casino built on top of the Bitcoin blockchain. It was probably inefficient, and slow when the network was congested, but it was working.

Not to make this reply a bit off topic but I am not talking about directbet not being an on-chain casino. That question is for a casino that what if it is not an on-chain casino and in this case, what if directbet is not an on-chain casino?. I don't need to read their ann thread since I am asking all about the site more like a KYC of some sort. I know you will be confused as what KYC I really mean and it's not Know Your Customer but Know Your Casino. That's the reason why I ask a question and not about me saying that directbet is not an on-chain casino. What can you say or your opinion if directbet is not an on-chain casino?.
That's what I really want you to answer as shown in the quote.

Ser, you're taking what I posted and making another debate out of that. Because if DirectBet was not truly an on-chain casino, it would be like the casino in your, and my signature. But I was not talking about that, I was talking about the "Ideal Solution" for KYC this topic/OP is looking for, and I was merely making the suggestion that the "Ideal Solution" might be NO KYC which DirectBet provided.

[Ghostnipple]

KYC should never be required on withdrawal of winnings, as that money has come from the casino.

If a casino is concerned about money laundering they should only be allowed to ask for KYC prior to deposit.

The KYC system is being abused by the casinos, who will do anything they can to delay a withdrawal, in the hope you will start playing again.

[nakamura12]

Ser, you're taking what I posted and making another debate out of that. Because if DirectBet was not truly an on-chain casino, it would be like the casino in your, and my signature. But I was not talking about that, I was talking about the "Ideal Solution" for KYC this topic/OP is looking for, and I was merely making the suggestion that the "Ideal Solution" might be NO KYC which DirectBet provided.

That wasn't so hard to answer right?. You should have answered on point rather than educating me about directbet being an on-chain casino and one of the old casinos in bitcoin instead of pointing out the solution that you have mentioned like gambling in a xasino that is an on-chain casino and doesn't require KYC. In my previous post, I am stating about a situation if you are gambling in a casino that have license then you would be required to complete KYC before you can withdraw if you won decent or huge amount of money in their casino.

[Wind_FURY]

Ser, you're taking what I posted and making another debate out of that. Because if DirectBet was not truly an on-chain casino, it would be like the casino in your, and my signature. But I was not talking about that, I was talking about the "Ideal Solution" for KYC this topic/OP is looking for, and I was merely making the suggestion that the "Ideal Solution" might be NO KYC which DirectBet provided.

That wasn't so hard to answer right?. You should have answered on point rather than educating me about directbet being an on-chain casino and one of the old casinos in bitcoin instead of pointing out the solution that you have mentioned like gambling in a xasino that is an on-chain casino and doesn't require KYC. In my previous post, I am stating about a situation if you are gambling in a casino that have license then you would be required to complete KYC before you can withdraw if you won decent or huge amount of money in their casino.

Ser, relax. Hahaha.

I wasn't educating you about DirectBet, I was only showing you what it was on-chain when you posted that "you couldn't read somewhere in their site that they're an on-chain casino". What site did you visit? The real DirectBet has been offline, and their topic in the forum has been locked.

I was also merely suggesting that having the "ideal KYC solution" could also be "fixed" through technical implementation, like DirectBet's on-chain solution.

[nakamura12]

Ser, relax. Hahaha.

I wasn't educating you about DirectBet, I was only showing you what it was on-chain when you posted that "you couldn't read somewhere in their site that they're an on-chain casino". What site did you visit? The real DirectBet has been offline, and their topic in the forum has been locked.

I was also merely suggesting that having the "ideal KYC solution" could also be "fixed" through technical implementation, like DirectBet's on-chain solution.

no worries, I am relax and I am just pointing the fact about the discussion. No need to tell me to relax as I am relax and I am only sharing my thoughts and opinion to you. One more thing, you don't have to call me or address me as ser or sir. After all, we have the freedom of speech in this forum unlike the other platform where it is moderated and some words are not allowed. To be precise, I didn't visit directbet website or their ann thread as I am not interested in directbet at all.

[o48o]

KYC should never be required on withdrawal of winnings, as that money has come from the casino.
If a casino is concerned about money laundering they should only be allowed to ask for KYC prior to deposit.
The KYC system is being abused by the casinos, who will do anything they can to delay a withdrawal, in the hope you will start playing again.

It doesn't only matter where the money comes from, because AML laws also require to know where you are from and who exactly are you. There are some blacklisted names and countries they can't do business with. And since people use VPN they can't just trust on the IP where you are from.
Also your last sentence doesn't make any sense to me. If the withrawal is delayed, why would you play again until it's solved?

[Emitdama]

KYC will stay as a big problem won't it? I mean it is not clear why, but it is clear that we are going to keep having this for a long time and that upsets me for sure. I wish that it never even existed, that would have been a lot better. I am trying to make sure that I play in places that doesn't offer such a thing, and not have KYC at all, but unfortunately it is getting more and more common these days.

I get that people want to make sure that they are playing in legit places and most legit places have KYC but that doesn't mean that all places that doesn't ask KYC is shady, Stake doesn't ask it and they are as legit as it gets, and I like it that way.

[Zackgeno96]

The problems related to the KYC are probably not too bad. It's not something that has come up out of the blue in recent months. It has been current for years and perhaps longer than that. At every regular gambling site you will be asked to identify yourself via the KYC procedure. If we are talking about a gambling site that only accepts crypto, it will of course be a different story. A licensee can demand all kinds of things, but how are they going to check all of that? That is tedious and complex work, I think that the authorities are busy with completely different things than checking such matters.

[Cryptomultiplier]

In my opinion, I do believe KYC has been rather efficient in delivering on its service to these sites that patronize them. Other than KYC, unless one is thinking full biometrics capturing, I don't see more than a few adjustments to what KYC stands to offer right now, explored. Perhaps other KYC competitors may have simplified processes involved, the best of them is supposed to be articulate, precise and have a simple enough to understand interface which users should not waste much time to update their details with. This KYC has delivered on, and other competitors would have to beat this stat.