Forget selfies and passports – crypto should be private

[Luke3bird]

It's just a matter of time (and money,) before privacy laws catch up to security laws.  For now, there are little ramifications other than class action law suites when a bank or exchange suffers a data breach.  The expense of securing customer data is likely still more expensive than the occasional penalties of a data breach.  That needs to change.

The bigger issue in my opinion is banks and CEXs taking it upon themselves to babysit their customers' funds.  Like the story of in the OP about the guy who missed his rent payment due to the exchange holding a withdrawal.  That's inexcusable, and no politician will tough that one.

We just can not fully believe in any corporations, companies, platforms in all industries, not only in cryptocurrency and centralized exchange industry with our privacy and funds. They might or might not spend enough resources for their system and platform security but it is never enough because hackers will always try to do their works and after many attacks and efforts, they will succeed sometimes.

Assuming when we send documents out of our homes or computers to any company, we lost it forever and which security system such company has is not matter.

It's the same with fund stored on centralized exchanges that can be seized by governments, be scam exited, hacked to deaths, many reasons. Counting dead exchanges is not easy.
https://www.cryptowisser.com/exchange-graveyard/

[SquallLeonhart]

While I do understand that privacy is something that some people care about, the government and laws do not work like that. They can't just let you be free and not care about what you do, it is not the same and we should not be considering that as a good thing.

I personally think that we should not be considering this possible for governments. If we go against governments, then we can, we have that right, use p2p and hide what you have via mixers and whatever, surely it is still doable, and you wouldn't be followed and you can cash out any way you wish to hide it, but that will be harder to do compared to using an exchange.

[Jegileman]

The honest truth is that most people just want something that works fast and easy, so they follow whatever platform is popular without thinking deeper about control or data. It's not always that they don’t care, sometimes its just convenience over awareness. But slowly and surly, as more people experience issues like frozen funds or data leaks, I think more users will start paying attention and looking for better alternatives.

Most people that happen to hold privacy with high esteem and don’t joke about it are those that have really felt what it means to lose your privacy, they’ve been a victim of great loss of funds in their journey in crypto. People like this don’t want a repetition of what has happened to them before, so they hold on to privacy with much consciousness and are more aware than before about the potential harm that can come to their funds when exposed.

[minic1993]

This is the trade-off people don’t fully appreciate when they enter crypto through centralized platforms.

Compliance might reduce certain risks, but it clearly introduces others, especially around privacy, custody, and user control.

The irony is that Bitcoin was designed to remove the need for trust, yet most users are still operating in systems where permission is required to access their own funds.

[melinoe]

This is the trade-off people don’t fully appreciate when they enter crypto through centralized platforms.

Compliance might reduce certain risks, but it clearly introduces others, especially around privacy, custody, and user control.

The irony is that Bitcoin was designed to remove the need for trust, yet most users are still operating in systems where permission is required to access their own funds.

Because such people don't know the consequences of such compliance in the long run.

[legiteum]

This is the trade-off people don’t fully appreciate when they enter crypto through centralized platforms.

Compliance might reduce certain risks, but it clearly introduces others, especially around privacy, custody, and user control.

The irony is that Bitcoin was designed to remove the need for trust, yet most users are still operating in systems where permission is required to access their own funds.

Because such people don't know the consequences of such compliance in the long run.

What consequences would those be? Self-custody has problems too: you can lose your keys, or be the victim of a $5 wrench attack. Most people don't like the idea of physically guarding their own life savings, which is why banks were invented.

Insofar as there are criminals and corruption in the world, and insofar as humans are fallible, there's risk in every single thing we do.

The only question is, how do you decide what is safer? Will you be like those people who see an airline crash on TV and decide to make a 10 hour drive in their car instead--even though statistically they are 100x safer in the airplane? Self-custody is like that: statistically your money is much safer with somebody else guarding it unless you live in a third world country or something.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Most people don't like the idea of physically guarding their own life savings, which is why banks were invented.

Victims of the Executive Order 6102 would disagree with the idea that the government holding your gold coins is safer than self-custody.

There's a chance history repeats, and people with bitcoin ETFs and IOUs end up financial hostages. I know, it is a crazy conspiracy theory I read on the Internet by some lunatics who also believe the democratically elected governments are actually puppet States of some higher power structure.

[Strongkored]

While I do understand that privacy is something that some people care about, the government and laws do not work like that. They can't just let you be free and not care about what you do, it is not the same and we should not be considering that as a good thing.

I personally think that we should not be considering this possible for governments. If we go against governments, then we can, we have that right, use p2p and hide what you have via mixers and whatever, surely it is still doable, and you wouldn't be followed and you can cash out any way you wish to hide it, but that will be harder to do compared to using an exchange.

We can againts the government, but it requires a lot of effort, because more and more of our activity especially financial ones, will come into contact with the government.
Of course, we'd love to never share our data with anyone, but the difficult choice ultimately leads many to give in and upload personal data to countless websites.
Even though you use crypto but want to enjoy it as fiat, in the end there is data that has to be uploaded, it's sad but a reality that is hard to ignore.

[Rikafip]

The irony is that Bitcoin was designed to remove the need for trust, yet most users are still operating in systems where permission is required to access their own funds.

Truth is that vast majority of people couldn't give a fuck about being their own bank and everything else that bitcoin stands for. They are into it only for the profit, and will do whatever is needed to achieve that, not thinking about the consequences of their actions.

[Faisal2202]

Swapping on instant exchanges feels like magic; everything is smooth and feels heavenly. Because we don't have to give any of our information first to swap, or even don't have to connect our wallets, because usually, before when swapping, smart contracts duplicates and wallet connections were a serious problem. But with time, these instant exchanges have made things really cool.

Although those seeking convenience, CEX with low taker and maker fees is fine but they can't pay a little more with full privacy. They make bad deals but you explained it in a fine way that the deal they make is not good but expensive and bad.

[legiteum]

Most people don't like the idea of physically guarding their own life savings, which is why banks were invented.

Victims of the Executive Order 6102 would disagree with the idea that the government holding your gold coins is safer than self-custody.

There's a chance history repeats, and people with bitcoin ETFs and IOUs end up financial hostages. I know, it is a crazy conspiracy theory I read on the Internet by some lunatics who also believe the democratically elected governments are actually puppet States of some higher power structure.

Sure. And occasionally airliners crash. But air travel is till far safer than driving yourself (190x, I looked it up ).

[BlackHatCoiner]

Sure. And occasionally airliners crash. But air travel is till far safer than driving yourself (190x, I looked it up ).

It would be an interesting analogy if storing Bitcoin with third parties did not already come with a history full of victims who trusted a custodian and lost it all due to hacks and bankruptcies.

[legiteum]

Sure. And occasionally airliners crash. But air travel is till far safer than driving yourself (190x, I looked it up ).

It would be an interesting analogy if storing Bitcoin with third parties did not already come with a history full of victims who trusted a custodian and lost it all due to hacks and bankruptcies.

And many airliners have crashed and killed everybody on board over the years, too. But it's safer than driving yourself. It's a perfect analogy.

[vanesha]

I'm sure everyone wants to preserve the unique characteristics of cryptocurrency. Since the government's recent policy on cryptocurrency circulation and OJK supervision, OJK's supervision has not been tested. Furthermore, now seems like a really bad time to play with cryptocurrency privacy. I need to step back and assess the current situation.

[Findingnemo]

Sure. And occasionally airliners crash. But air travel is till far safer than driving yourself (190x, I looked it up ).

It would be an interesting analogy if storing Bitcoin with third parties did not already come with a history full of victims who trusted a custodian and lost it all due to hacks and bankruptcies.

And many airliners have crashed and killed everybody on board over the years, too. But it's safer than driving yourself. It's a perfect analogy.

Well, bitcoin offers a choice, be your own bank, fly your airplane by yourself, so if I know what I am doing mean I would trust me more than anyone else in this world so if we apply the same I will be giving the best possibly security to my assets when it's under my completely control and one can access is the person who got the seeds.