Forget selfies and passports – crypto should be private

[BlackHatCoiner]

People sometimes mention DEXes like Bisq as an alternative for on- and offramping (crypto-to-crypto has a quite good solution with atomic swaps), but these services have also some problems. For example, your counterparty may be actually a honeypot. Reputation systems can help but are not perfect.

Yes, but reducing from "monitoring all bitcoin activity regardless" to just "monitoring the activity of users I trade with" is just orders of magnitude less damaging. A honeypot would have to constantly insert bids and asks positions and pay large sums in mining and trading fees every day to keep up. And it'd still miss a lot of trades.

It's the same with coinjoin solutions where sybil attacking requires you to pay large sums in mining fees. It has worked pretty well so far. 

[pawanjain]

snip

I still work here.

But last Thursday I swapped on b1exch.

Took 90 seconds.

You think the people who build the cage sleep inside it?

Your post was quite interesting to read. Although it was long, still I read everything and it was as if you are talking to me in person.
The last line of your post was quite intriguing but I really wanna ask, are you proud of your work and enjoy what you do ?

The problem with centralized crypto exchanges is known to almost everyone using it and people still prefer to use it for their convenience.
So the question is why do people still use centralized crypto exchanges ?

[BlackHatCoiner]

The last line of your post was quite intriguing but I really wanna ask, are you proud of your work and enjoy what you do ?

I am proud and I enjoy it. You're welcome for the poetry.

So the question is why do people still use centralized crypto exchanges ?

Here's why:

• Giving up every piece of data you've got is familiar with traditional banking.
• People usually trust companies they've seen on advertisements, like Binance and Kraken.
• The fiat on- and off-ramp is usually not available by unregulated entities, which means you're sent to decentralized exchanges that are harder to use.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

Here's why:

• Giving up every piece of data you've got is familiar with traditional banking.
• People usually trust companies they've seen on advertisements, like Binance and Kraken.
• The fiat on- and off-ramp is usually not available by unregulated entities, which means you're sent to decentralized exchanges that are harder to use.

They can see advertisements somewhere but if it is advertisement on Facebook, it's mostly scam. I don't know why Facebook does not pay enough attention and take action to filter scam advertisements while they easily let many scam advertisements of exchanges appear on their platform. If you see Binance advertisement on Facebook, it's not official one from Binance as the link will direct you to a phishing site. Same with other exchanges and it's general policy from Facebook to support scammers.

[Easteregg69]

I use a national ID that can't be copied. No mugshot. Biometrics like. A small device that only works with numbers. As in rational privacy.

You look like shit some days and don't wanna make a selfie style. Wanting money does not make it prettier.

Who wants icubes on the steak?

[SmartGold01]

We can go on and on about this for as long as the financial system exists but the truth remains you cni stop KYC and centralization as long as the government exists so will it plus these days people don't even care no more they just opt in for these out of the blue.

Outside this forum where decentralization is recognised and practiced you will barely find a handful of people that value decentralization they all buy the concept of it being sugar-coated as security not control over you and your assets.

You are right on this.. for sure, as long as we have Centralized system such as CEX people must definitely required to through verification system and for the privacy and security to increase then such person should be able to avoid using those centralized platforms. Hence, it would be more useful to focused on decentralized platform, with this they could increase their security and privacy, but yet another thing remains unfold. When people keep using decentralized platform you would also see government trying to fight them because they are not also having control over them but as it's their attention are on those centralized platforms where they could easily monitor and track people over there, that is why they mainly focused on those platforms.

[Nheer]

An impressive work of art. Reading your posts always carries a certain depth and realism.
Funny enough I have lived this exact “suspicious activity” movie before. Imagine having your own money locked away yet you're being told your activities is “suspicious” without any clear explanation. It's almost laughable but it isn’t.

I remember desperately trying to access my funds because I had a loan to settle that very day but instead I was stuck with sending emails up and down explaining myself over and over like I was trying to prove my own innocence. It was frustrating and embarrassing. What made it worse was the delay waiting nearly a full day just to get a reply and almost two weeks before everything was finally resolved all in the name of “regulatory compliance.” At some point, it stops feeling like protection and starts feeling like punishment on purpose.

The experience really changed my perspective.bExperiences like this make you realize how important control and privacy is when it comes to your own finances.

[Easteregg69]

The suspicious part comes out of people that is not alloved to own anything.

Aka laundry.. God dang i got a good steak over here.

[d5000]

Most politicians are just servants of far more powerful players who rule the world from the shadows - so for me it doesn't matter who is in power because even those who act differently get corrupted over time. The problem (if we can call it that) is that Bitcoin strikes at the very core of today's centralized system, which has fiat currency and absolute control at its core. Any politician who would let people use a decentralized cryptocurrency without any supervision would shoot himself in both the knees (figuratively in terms of his political career).

My view on that is different. The problem is that yes, they would shoot themselves in their knees, but not because of some conspiracy of evil elites, but because the "common folks" (=voters) are more focused on security than on privacy. Their biggest fear is to get robbed, not to get imprisoned unjustly. So if a politician fights for real privacy, there will always be one of another party accusing them to "increase criminality" or to "protect the criminals". And have we already talked about "protecting our children" (See Australia's mandatory KYC for social media)?   And the "security-focused" mob is currently significantly bigger than the privacy-focused mob.

It's an uphill battle, but perhaps with education and communication something can be changed eventually.

Even in Libertarian circles most are only caring about paying the least possible amount of taxes, privacy is a minor topic.

Yes, but reducing from "monitoring all bitcoin activity regardless" to just "monitoring the activity of users I trade with" is just orders of magnitude less damaging. A honeypot would have to constantly insert bids and asks positions and pay large sums in mining and trading fees every day to keep up. And it'd still miss a lot of trades.

I get what you mean, but a malicious Bisq user can in theory sell your bank data to criminals. A CEX can do that too, but if they're regulated they would commit a crime and put their business model in danger if that became known, so there's an incentive against it.

Careful selection of trading partners and additional security measures is thus paramount for Bisq users. I would only use it with a secondary bank account I only top up with "play money" sometimes. For Average Joes that's already a quite complicated thought process.

[purple_sparkles]

For me, sharing personal data with anyone whether it’s a trusted organization or even a government body, is a very questionable matter. We can never be 100% sure that this information won’t be hacked, sold, or used against us in some way. I support being cautious and skeptical about the fact that large corporations and organizations need our data, as I believe it can be used to gain control and power.

[DireWolfM14]

Most politicians are just servants of far more powerful players who rule the world from the shadows - so for me it doesn't matter who is in power because even those who act differently get corrupted over time. The problem (if we can call it that) is that Bitcoin strikes at the very core of today's centralized system, which has fiat currency and absolute control at its core. Any politician who would let people use a decentralized cryptocurrency without any supervision would shoot himself in both the knees (figuratively in terms of his political career).

My view on that is different. The problem is that yes, they would shoot themselves in their knees, but not because of some conspiracy of evil elites, but because the "common folks" (=voters) are more focused on security than on privacy. Their biggest fear is to get robbed, not to get imprisoned unjustly. So if a politician fights for real privacy, there will always be one of another party accusing them to "increase criminality" or to "protect the criminals". And have we already talked about "protecting our children" (See Australia's mandatory KYC for social media)?   And the "security-focused" mob is currently significantly bigger than the privacy-focused mob.

It's an uphill battle, but perhaps with education and communication something can be changed eventually.

Even in Libertarian circles most are only caring about paying the least possible amount of taxes, privacy is a minor topic.

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.

Yes, but reducing from "monitoring all bitcoin activity regardless" to just "monitoring the activity of users I trade with" is just orders of magnitude less damaging. A honeypot would have to constantly insert bids and asks positions and pay large sums in mining and trading fees every day to keep up. And it'd still miss a lot of trades.

I get what you mean, but a malicious Bisq user can in theory sell your bank data to criminals. A CEX can do that too, but if they're regulated they would commit a crime and put their business model in danger if that became known, so there's an incentive against it.

Careful selection of trading partners and additional security measures is thus paramount for Bisq users. I would only use it with a secondary bank account I only top up with "play money" sometimes. For Average Joes that's already a quite complicated thought process.

Bisq is one of the better ways to maintain your privacy, even when dealing with fiat.  It's not perfect, but it's just about the best we have.  For experienced users, there are many ways to mitigate exposure:

1. Constantly changing your seed which creates a new onion address/identity.  You can create a new seed and import your signed bank details, so you don't have to start from scratch in that regard.  

2: Using one account with signed bank details to buy, another with unsigned bank details (preferably to a different bank) to sell.

3. Use payment methods that only expose a sudonyme to the peer (such as Revolut, for example, but the amounts traded can be limiting at first with these types of accounts.)

4. Using another two accounts with no bank details, one solely for bitcoin to monero and the other for monero to bitcoin swaps is another great way to further obfuscate the sources and quantities of your bitcoin.

These are great ways to maintain as much privacy as possible, since every seed/account has it's own unique identity.  And all of these can be changed frequently.  This all assumes that you're using digital methods for on/off ramping fiat, as oppose to in-person or cash trades.  As for bank details; I use Zelle in the US, which only exposes my name and email or name and phone number.  No other details are exposed, not even the name of the bank.  Wire transfers don't expose my bank details unless I'm the recipient of the transfer, but those are easy enough to avoid.

Furthermore, we never really know who's behind the KYC-free exchanges, either.  In my opinion it's far more likely that those are three-letter-agency honeypots than any one buyer/seller on Bisq.

[legiteum]

My view on that is different. The problem is that yes, they would shoot themselves in their knees, but not because of some conspiracy of evil elites, but because the "common folks" (=voters) are more focused on security than on privacy.

I agree with that and the rest of your post, but I would add that most people don't want to fight their government for two reasons:

1. They are afraid of being prosecuted.

2. They assume the government will eventually catch up with them, so it's pointless to try.

I talk to people here in the US all of the time who ask me, "what do you do if the US government comes after you?". I give them an answer that is depressing and also realistic: you're probably screwed if this happens.

Hence, 99% of people just want to stay within their country's laws. And if your plan is to stay within the law, you don't care if your government can get at your private information because you have nothing to hide.

Hence it's unrealistic to convince voters to vote for privacy from their government, but I think it's realistic to see laws passed that will protect consumers from marketers, criminals, your neighbors and so on.

Products like NordVPN, DuckDuckGo, and Haypenny give consumers a product that serves this need. Governments can inquire into these companies and get their records (although we put up a fight for our users to make sure its something within their law), most consumers are fine with this level of privacy since they aren't breaking their laws and don't plan to.

[uchegod-21]

~snip

What you are saying has no statistical backing. People blindly love centralization because of illiteracy, laziness or fear. There are countless people that won't hesitate to do KYC on a centralized platform just because of $5 bucks worth of bonus and you say what again? People just assume once legal stuff is involved their interest is safe.

Let's not get started about the argument on speed DEX are crazy fast and support your interest way more. The average Joe thinks he's safe because he's working with an average of 200 bucks a month... Wait till it's 5 or 6 figures then you'll picture what a trap really means.

No matter how many times topics like this are brought up, a good number of people will still choose to trust the centralised system because that is what they are used to and they have been brainwashed to believe that an organisation who demands for all of these means well for them. That is ignorance at its peak. The solution is to carryout a general reorientation on everyone, they must understand that the traditional system which we were all introduced to was never for our own benefit, but for the benefit of those in custody of our valuables; having all of our personal details is the only way they can control us and what we have entrusted in their care.

[Mate2237]

If there is actually a threat to self custody that has come from the government in recent years, as crypto becomes more popular. Government is making KYC compulsory in exchanges under the pretexts of safety compliance but the big question here is that how safe is this information that has been collected from millions of people trying to register and get their accounts on exchanges .



The issue of security has become paramount to every crypto currency users Bitcoin there are always threats coming, which is making more people to become more vulnerable. We need to take our security personnel by taking steps that will safeguard our crypto assets, prioritizing safety by making everything about your crypto holding private is one attitude we all should learn.

[Hamza2424]

If there is actually a threat to self custody that has come from the government in recent years, as crypto becomes more popular. Government is making KYC compulsory in exchanges under the pretexts of safety compliance but the big question here is that how safe is this information that has been collected from millions of people trying to register and get their accounts on exchanges .

The issue of security has become paramount to every crypto currency users Bitcoin there are always threats coming, which is making more people to become more vulnerable. We need to take our security personnel by taking steps that will safeguard our crypto assets, prioritizing safety by making everything about your crypto holding private is one attitude we all should learn.

The security is also vulnerable haha like the cases reported in South Korea, where the officials took bribes to move seized funds, if they are moving seized funds, then imagine what they could be doing with the data they have. They could easily be selling it to someone somewhere.

Our data online with these centralized platforms is not safe, they use our data to target us, they are officials, they will use official ways like taxation and all that but they won't come after us for wrench attacks but what if someone who could actually pull wrench attacks too comes to have our data?

This is serious and that's why we should not use them because there is no need to.

[shinratensei_]

We never know if they are really safe, they just saying that to calm their customers and keep their coins in the exchange. I guess many KYC data has been breached but that is not reported especially if that breach is small.

It is our job to finds the right companies that really gives protection to their users. With so many companies, we really need to be careful choosing them and always research.

That's true and yeah, I only KYC to a big company that are worth billions to make sure that they have the money for their security department to keep our data safe.
Any new company or a company that lacks money to maintain their security department, I wouldn't want to KYC like ever.

[ThemePen]

If there is actually a threat to self custody that has come from the government in recent years, as crypto becomes more popular. Government is making KYC compulsory in exchanges under the pretexts of safety compliance but the big question here is that how safe is this information that has been collected from millions of people trying to register and get their accounts on exchanges .



The issue of security has become paramount to every crypto currency users Bitcoin there are always threats coming, which is making more people to become more vulnerable. We need to take our security personnel by taking steps that will safeguard our crypto assets, prioritizing safety by making everything about your crypto holding private is one attitude we all should learn.

ID check of crypto exchanges is required and creates serious weak spot and I do agree that once you give your ID and address to third party company, hacker makes you easy target.
And exactly worth of protecting secrets is must have way to learn, and that is why keeping your money in cold storage and having shared ways such as Uniswap or Bisq are only means by which you can be sure that you are really owner of your coins. I would say that, greatest risk is not just government spying, but fact that such huge lists most likely will be hacked or leaked in the long run. In order to stay safe you are to treat main exchanges as place to buy it only to move your Bitcoin to personal wallet to remove it off your shoulders.

[rodskee]

Here's why:

• Giving up every piece of data you've got is familiar with traditional banking.
• People usually trust companies they've seen on advertisements, like Binance and Kraken.
• The fiat on- and off-ramp is usually not available by unregulated entities, which means you're sent to decentralized exchanges that are harder to use.

They can see advertisements somewhere but if it is advertisement on Facebook, it's mostly scam. I don't know why Facebook does not pay enough attention and take action to filter scam advertisements while they easily let many scam advertisements of exchanges appear on their platform. If you see Binance advertisement on Facebook, it's not official one from Binance as the link will direct you to a phishing site. Same with other exchanges and it's general policy from Facebook to support scammers.

the answer is money. you pay, they allow. you pay, they post. it’s that easy. meta doesn’t put quality as a priority as long as money keeps flowing. they don’t review the quality of content posted in their platforms anymore, facebook is full of scams.

[barbara44]

My view on that is different. The problem is that yes, they would shoot themselves in their knees, but not because of some conspiracy of evil elites, but because the "common folks" (=voters) are more focused on security than on privacy. Their biggest fear is to get robbed, not to get imprisoned unjustly. So if a politician fights for real privacy, there will always be one of another party accusing them to "increase criminality" or to "protect the criminals". And have we already talked about "protecting our children" (See Australia's mandatory KYC for social media)?   And the "security-focused" mob is currently significantly bigger than the privacy-focused mob.

It's an uphill battle, but perhaps with education and communication something can be changed eventually.

Even in Libertarian circles most are only caring about paying the least possible amount of taxes, privacy is a minor topic.

That's not an invalid concern in my view. People are ready to share all their info, in exchange of all the people they deal with exchanging their info, so we are all known by the government, so that if anything like a scam happens, we know the culprit and we could take them down. That is better than privacy for some people and I am not really shocked about it, I think that's quite possible and likely solution for us.

I think the best that we could do right now would be letting the market decide which direction we will go, and see what the majority wants. If people are willing to let go privacy in exchange of security, then that's what we will have, if they don't then we won't, it's as simple as that and won't matter what individuals thing, because group is the one that matters.

[betswift]

the answer is money. you pay, they allow. you pay, they post. it’s that easy. meta doesn’t put quality as a priority as long as money keeps flowing. they don’t review the quality of content posted in their platforms anymore, facebook is full of scams.

Yep. True. They are as big as they need to in order to allow such things to happen or not put their fingers much to it.