If KYC stays many lives will be lost in the future

[RGBTC]

Why did it take this long before someone could speak up? Someone I meant is; someone in power. Is the government suddenly tired of being the government?
Are they tired of controlling and censoring everyone? Well, this is a mere protest call by a SEC commissioner, I'll keep my fingers crossed to see if other big names and portfolios will buy the idea.

This represents a dilemma for the industry. On one hand, they have a responsibility to protect "compliant" individuals who may have incurred significant costs; on the other, they must track down what are termed "dirty/illicit funds", a task that requires a task requiring comprehensive personal information.

Beyond the debate between the SEC and state intelligence agencies, this also sets the stage for a clash of opinions between those who rely on custodial services to safeguard their crypto assets and the victims of fraud, hacks, and other incidents who are hoping the perpetrators' identities will be uncovered.

[m2017]

God bless Hester Peirce for even bringing this up, something that random people have been talking for few years now.
That KYC verification must go, enough is enough.

No one will look after the bitcoiners except her. It’s not for nothing that she’s crypto-mom.

You can't say because you want to know who controls a Bitcoin address and not care about the dangers that comes with that.

Tell that to the regulators, who couldn't care less about the risks to bitcoiners. The main thing is that they pay taxes (on this crypto) and keep quiet.

Home invasion, Wrench attacks are growing up and it's looking like crypto chart 📈 ready to slowly keeps climbing.

Of course, that is exactly how it will play out. After all, the regulator is quick to impose obligations on crypto-users but in no rush to protect them. Look at any bill related to crypto-market regulation: it will primarily focus on restrictions for crypto-users and taxation issues, rather than the protection of their rights, freedoms, and lives.

This is the best thing that I have read online this year so far, finally someone in power sees it.

Or perhaps he just wanted to generate some hype around the issue. People like that never do anything selflessly. Still, it is a good thing that the matter might now be brought up for discussion at a different level.

In the future hackers will prefer to look for data to go after people who holds Bitcoin,

This is not a joke, if you think it's impossible wait till Bitcoin reach 400k and counting.
The more valuable Bitcoin becomes and more it endagers your life.

Absolutely correct.

During the next bull run (and subsequent ones), when the price of bitcoin turns heads, we will frequently hear stories like these (stories that are unpleasant for BTC-holders).

KYC needs to Go.....

However, that is hard to believe. The regulator would sooner sacrifice citizens' wallets and lives to predators than relinquish its power over them - a power manifested in the control of financial flows (BTC-addresses with KYC).

[YellowSwap]

No one is a kid in today's online world, when a platform starts asking you for high grade information you don't need to be told to ignore them.

Just because you want to buy some Bitcoin no exchange should be asking you for your home address or any documents that has your home address on it.

Not even your NIN and BVN should be shared with any online platforms, part of the crew might be criminals, even most hacks happening with crypto exchanges today are probably someone on the inside.

Someone working in a exchange company can easily steal data or plan for an heist.

[Die_empty]

The bigger question is.

Will centralised exchange exist without kyc since is a mandatory requirement for them to get licensed.

Another thing is, individual Bitcoin wallet holders have the right to either go to a KYC compliance platform or make use of a fully decentralised one; it's up to them to choose which fits them the most.

If SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce's leverage verifiable credentials and zero-knowledge proofs identification model is adopted, some crypto laws will have to be amended. Exchanges would be required to require users to present a cryptographic proof from a trusted issuer, such as a government agency or regulated financial institution, instead of personal information.

In some countries, decentralized exchanges are finding it difficult to operate because of strict regulations.

It's a good suggestion by Hester because it would reduce the rate at which personal information is collected from crypto users. It would be safer for one agency to hold my personal information than for it to be in the custody of several crypto-related service providers.

This I get clearly, and something that has to do with trust the model will work perfectly with the right system in place, such that another third party issuance of that screen proof ID.

Between in the end this still brings us to the same KYC thing but at a minimal level instead handing over the documents to the platform you give them to the issuing party to get the ID to verify with.

Thirdly what advantage will this have for decentralised exchanges whose operational challenges have been regulatory compliance?

I don't see any advantage this proposal will have for decentralized platforms since this process still involves KYC. The only reason why I mentioned exchanges is that you mentioned that people have options to use either decentralized or centralized exchanges. Some countries are making laws that would force people to provide KYC before they process crypto transactions. These restrictions are forcing people to use different privacy tools to bypass these restrictions.

[Dareo]

-snip-

It’s actually not about whether KYC will be implemented or not, the question is what if a person’s identity, address, and crypto funds are kept together? Also Hester Pearce did not call for total abolition of KYC procedure recently but suggested verification of clients using zero knowledge proof and attribute based credentials without disclosing required information, At least the SEC has talked about this, and that's a lot. So if less information is saved then the damage from data leaks can also be relatively less.

[FinneysTrueVision]

This goes beyond cryptocurrency. A majority of the 153 million people affected by the recent hack of drivers license records are probably not crypto users, I would assume. Many lives will be financially ruined because of identity theft. And of course, there’s also all the other privacy and security implications. These incidents make it easier to target high profile individuals and wealthy people, some who might be crypto holders.

Anything that can mitigate those threats is a step in the right direction. Zero knowledge proofs have started to become a common suggestion. My concern is that this will be an excuse to hand government contracts to altcoin grifters that fund different political campaigns and we won’t actually see any real solution.

[Popkon6]

This is not a bad thing, because your identity can definitely be traced for the KYC system. If you have a lot of Bitcoin and hackers can easily find all your identities including your address, it is not impossible and you have to give your KYC to exchanges where it is very easy to trace. Because we want privacy Bitcoin means privacy and a secret asset,
those who secretly hold it should never be found by hackers. That is why privacy is important, so this idea is certainly quite suitable for protecting privacy.

[NotATether]

I think this particular SEC chair resigned. That whale watch account posted it on X.

Yep, it's true:

U.S. SEC's steadiest crypto advocate, Hester Peirce, to depart next week

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's longtime ally of the crypto industry, Commissioner Hester Peirce, has set a departure date for next week, marking an end to a long era in which she sought clear rules for the sector — even during the years in which the agency refused to consider crypto regulations and pursued an array of legal actions.

Her final day is Oct. 2, according to a resignation letter she posted Friday on social media site X, which emerged even as the SEC was posting yet another piece of crypto policy work meant to clear up lingering questions on how the agency is defining tokens and its expectations for how projects are marketed.

Peirce, often known as "Crypto Mom" by digital assets insiders, pushed for years to get industry regulations during the chairmanships of Republican Jay Clayton and Democrat Gary Gensler — both of whom pursued aggressive crypto enforcement agendas. She finally got a chance to work on rules during the administration of President Donald Trump. She got started even before the arrival of current Chairman Paul Atkins, having been put in charge of the SEC's new Crypto Task Force last year.

Her crypto work included a wide range of policy statements and guidance that clarified the agency's position on various aspects of the industry, including mining, staking, memcoins and — most importantly — a series of definitions for classifying different types of crypto assets and which regulator would have dominion. More recently, the agency began proposing formal rules, beginning with one known as Regulation Crypto Assets, which set up a system for offering crypto assets without triggering stringent securities regulations.

Also, since when did Coindesk start doing paywalls? Are they trying to copy the mainstream news sites? Nobody even reads those anymore. Especially when people just pos the news on social media anyway.

But anyway, her resignation is bad for crypto because she was the voice opposing large swaths of crypto legislation, including all this KYC/AML stuff we're discussing now.

People should not have to die over ID verification. This is deeply wrong.

[Outhue]

Truth be told, there is no way centralised exchanges can run their business without KYC, do not believe everything you read online, the best they can do is stop accepting too sensitive information, especially those that have home address, electricity bills and others, maybe they will limit it down to just your national ID, incase a data breached took place they won't be able to find people's home.address and start looking for them, this is the highest move I would expect from them if they really want to do something.

[internetional]

the best they can do is stop accepting too sensitive information, especially those that have home address, electricity bills and others

There is another problem with proof-of-address requirements that I don't think has been mentioned here.

I haven't had a stable residential address for years. I move from place to place and from one country to another, and sometimes I spend several months living in a tent. So when a crypto service asks me for a utility bill, rental agreement, or some other proof of residence, the problem isn't that I don't want to provide it. I literally have nothing to provide.

Because of this, there are crypto services whose KYC I technically cannot pass even though there is nothing unusual or illegal about my situation.

Has the necessity of requiring a residential address itself ever been seriously questioned by regulators or compliance professionals? Not just because storing someone's home address creates a security risk, but because having a fixed or documentable place of residence shouldn't necessarily be a prerequisite for using a financial service.

[YOSHIE]

That KYC verification must go, enough is enough.

If KYC has to be removed, the first person who has to do it is banking, there are billions of real identities stored in banks, banks can't be hacked, stolen or robbed, of course they can.

Indeed, with the presence of internet supporting technology such as Bitcoin, it is one of the standard features on the global internet that must be used by Bitcoin users along with the development of existing Bitcoin exchange sites/applications, When we talk about identity theft, hacking, extortion or robbery falling into the hands of criminals, of course the risk of threats and physical robbery can occur.

That's why it's important, like Bitcoin exchanges and so on, to maintain their applications to the maximum and protect users very well, so that identity data doesn't leak into the hands of hackers, Even though criminals carry out hacking actions against exchanges and so on, they must really be able to protect identity ownership through KYC with full responsibility.

[Catenaccio]

If KYC has to be removed, the first person who has to do it is banking, there are billions of real identities stored in banks, banks can't be hacked, stolen or robbed, of course they can.

I dislike KYC but I believe that KYC after already passed to enforce by law will not be revoked.
Even some time in the future, KYC will be revoked, we will never be sure that there will be no leak of our personal documents from our previous KYC.
Politics can change, the won party can change but they will all remain AML and KYC, it's not comfortable for citizens and users but what we can do to change it, I don't think we can do anything.

That's why it's important, like Bitcoin exchanges and so on, to maintain their applications to the maximum and protect users very well, so that identity data doesn't leak into the hands of hackers, Even though criminals carry out hacking actions against exchanges and so on, they must really be able to protect identity ownership through KYC with full responsibility.

Because we can not change and revert AML and KYC policy as well as enforcement, we will have to be more selective with platforms we use and more careful for our privacy practice. If we can avoid doing things that leak our privacy, do that as best as we can.

[Compromise me]

Just because you want to buy some Bitcoin no exchange should be asking you for your home address or any documents that has your home address on it.

Not even your NIN and BVN should be shared with any online platforms, part of the crew might be criminals, even most hacks happening with crypto exchanges today are probably someone on the inside.
Someone working in a exchange company can easily steal data or plan for an heist.

Here in this post you already have enough things to understand, it's usually related to crew who are having criminals or having links with groups like those and have never had good minds and always need to do things that create chaos.

In a few countries things are getting worst due to these peoples those are clearing KYC they are having terrible things because they exposed and faced consequences its time to have some improvement in this data needed to be secure because in case of reaching out into wrong hands its done enough damage.

Hacking is always an inside job because it's never been related to data or anything else. People are always from companies that have enough knowledge about this and have done things with the help of criminals.

[Ahli38]

KYC needs to Go.....



https://x.com/WatcherGuru/status/2103510145024069816

I’m actually worried that this SEC commissioner might have a hidden agenda behind her statement. It’s possible she wants to profit from this. She might be trying to boost the profile of an altcoin that she’ll promote indirectly through her statement regarding ZK proofs. But let’s hope she truly has good intentions behind all of this. On the other hand ZK proofs are reportedly capable of securely protecting users’ personal data. And I’ve noticed that some Layer 2 solutions on the Bitcoin network are already utilizing ZK proof technology using Bitcoin as the native gas for transaction fees. If that goal can be achieved soon through the implementation she has called for then perhaps it might also be beneficial for Bitcoin users.

[hd49728]

And I’ve noticed that some Layer 2 solutions on the Bitcoin network are already utilizing ZK proof technology using Bitcoin as the native gas for transaction fees.

gas is for altcoins or shitcoins, not for Bitcoin.

With Bitcoin, you only have transaction size, fee rate and transaction fee. Transaction fee is paid with satoshi but it's not gas.
Bitcoin transaction size calculators.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

God bless Hester Peirce for even bringing this up, something that random people have been talking for few years now.
That KYC verification must go, enough is enough.

You can't say because you want to know who controls a Bitcoin address and not care about the dangers that comes with that.
Home invasion, Wrench attacks are growing up and it's looking like crypto chart 📈 ready to slowly keeps climbing.

This is the best thing that I have read online this year so far, finally someone in power sees it.
In the future hackers will prefer to look for data to go after people who holds Bitcoin,

This is not a joke, if you think it's impossible wait till Bitcoin reach 400k and counting.
The more valuable Bitcoin becomes and more it endagers your life.

KYC needs to Go.....

Now I see the main reason why Satoshi Nakamoto decided to stay anonymous, despite haven created one of the world's most valuable digital assets in centuries. Because who knows if he would have still been alive if he had made himself known to the public. And as such, staying anonymous with the amount of Bitcoin we own as an investor is one thing that ought to stay secret only with us without having a database which trace the amount of Bitcoin to our real physical identity. So I'm happy someone is taking the lead for a companion about the end of KYC on platforms, if government won't provide a maximum security measures to ensure it doesn't get into the wrong hands.

[Felicity_Tide]

This is the best thing that I have read online this year so far, finally someone in power sees it.

KYC needs to Go.....

Sure, it's not like a decent number of us actually enjoy it anyway, but do you think she actually meant what she said ?... I mean, there are rumors from different sources that she's resigning on October 2nd, which is a few days away from today, and afaik, no government official, especially from an agency like SEC, would advocate for the end of KYC data collection when they're still very much part of the government.

Of course, there's an element of truth to what she has said, but I personally don't see the government or platforms taking a break from this. And even if people's information gets compromised/leak, it's not like they're going to anything about it or are they?. The Revolut case was the most recent, and so far, I haven't seen any agency questioning their careless handling of customers data.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I’m currently going through the process of buying another house and I am having to go through KYC/AML procedures.

Since I verified my name and address for the estate agent through a third party company I have been receiving a lot of scam calls. This just proves that our identification and personal details get sold to bad actors.

I am totally fine with KYC/AML getting binned.

[Asiska02]

This is not a joke, if you think it's impossible wait till Bitcoin reach 400k and counting.
The more valuable Bitcoin becomes and more it endagers your life.

KYC needs to Go.....

Looking this whole KYC thing from the perspective of the bitcoin inventor, he emphasised more on decentralization which keeps you anonymous with your holdings. Even if people can publicly see how much you have in your portfolio, they never can’t know the face behind the account. This is better and massively reduces the possibility of a wrench attack unless the holder discloses him or herself.

The introduction of KYC is doing more harm than good even though some people don’t really have a problem with how their informations could be of danger when given to this third party platforms to have access to their services. This is a fight for all, and we can’t because we aren’t facing phishing or wrench attacks not speak up for those suffering from it as a result of their KYC data leaks or even sold by this sites.

[I_Anime]

God bless Hester Peirce for even bringing this up, something that random people have been talking for few years now.
That KYC verification must go, enough is enough.

You can't say because you want to know who controls a Bitcoin address and not care about the dangers that comes with that.
Home invasion, Wrench attacks are growing up and it's looking like crypto chart 📈 ready to slowly keeps climbing.

This is the best thing that I have read online this year so far, finally someone in power sees it.
In the future hackers will prefer to look for data to go after people who holds Bitcoin,

This is not a joke, if you think it's impossible wait till Bitcoin reach 400k and counting.
The more valuable Bitcoin becomes and more it endagers your life.

KYC needs to Go.....



https://x.com/WatcherGuru/status/2103510145024069816

There are alot of disadvantages that comes with doing KYC . Especially in this crypto space , where some folks are finding means to get hold of your valuable data’s.  When I’m talking advantages , I’m talking of loss of privacy ( which is really vital in this space ), Data-Breach risk , Third-party data sharing, Identity-theft and many more . So painful how many don’t know how bad this kyc stuff is , sharing out your data’s to unknown third party’s in the name of kyc verification and stuff . They should find ways to reduce it cause is getting out of hand.