Before you use them be sure they do not contradict the Bitcoin principles

[joniboini]

then it is easy to track them, and selling that info seems to be a very profitable business model for data brokers nowadays.

Can you give examples which data broker sell this data or where do they get them? I'm not doubting that somewhere on the darkweb people are selling data for various reasons, but I can't imagine a big data company explicitly selling personal identity linked to several addresses publicly. Maybe all of them have that, but they won't say it openly. Chainanalysis company probably won't put that label publicly too since they can price it much higher if the info is limited. Things are different with tracking hackers and whatnot though, I'm sure they won't get any huge backlash from that.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

If you are a consumer of any Bitcoin product such as software, hardware, etc, ensure that the most vital ones are atleast adhere to

One thing that bitcoin has always taught us is to maintain privacy and security at the same time, many will want to acquire bitcoin or trade it and depend on centralized exchange for anything they have to do at the expense of their personal information being released to a third party platform, today we can not afford to give our personal details even when acquiring products like hardware wallet from a company any longer because of the risk to what has been happening from those that earlier did the same thing, the moment we can maintain our privacy, we are mostly prevented.

[PX-Z]

If you are going to use a wallet, these list might help. But for an trading spot, future, etc. on an exchange or crypto card issuers, those list contradicts for what those businesses and services offering. Example trustlessness and privacy, those prinsiples doesn't exist for a business, because you need to trust them first and you need to give your personal info for verification.

You can use Bisq for off and on ramp, and then you can use Hyperliquid for perpetual and spot.

Both don't require KYC and Hyperliquid has supported direct bitcoin deposit and withdrawal. See the docs.

Therefore the principles still hold up with a little more digging for information.

Yes, this usually applies to those who genuinely protect their privacy and refuse to share their personal info with any platform. That principle still matters, and kudos to those who stick to it, there are only very few of them. However, most crypto users have probably already submitted their kyc docs to an exchange, casinos, or other similar platforms, whether they realize the long term privacy risks or not.

[Hamza2424]

— Anonymity/privacy: keep sensitive data/info private especially when dealing with your crypto assets in public space. It should be difficult to link your actually identity to the assets.

— Transparency:  make sure that transactions and exchange system are publicly transparent. The less transparent, the more cautious you should be.

Haha bro, you know more than these idiots. Datavault sold their shares for more than 1,300 BTC and received those bitcoins off-chain on a centralized exchange that I am sure you and I have never heard of. They were able to sell 400 of them back to the same buyers by sending them back to the same account on the CEX and getting cash, but the remaining bitcoins are now not there.

Datavault failed to recover them, so this news has already been discussed in another thread, but now I was reading your post, and I thought there was no better place than this to back up what you just said.

Since they made the payment off-chain, there is no transparency, and the owner doesn't even hold the keys because the funds sit on centralized exchanges that refuse to give them back now.

[X-ray]

You can use Bisq for off and on ramp, and then you can use Hyperliquid for perpetual and spot. Both don't require KYC and Hyperliquid has supported direct bitcoin deposit and withdrawal. Therefore the principles still hold up with a little more digging for information.

Bisq is non-custodial, yes, but not entirely trustless. This May, for example, they lost about 11 BTC to an exploit where the attacker specified a negative miner fee value that was not properly validated by the v1 protocol code. This allowed the attacker to empty out the funds of active offers. The exploit affected altcoin trades only, not fiat trades or Bisq 2.

Sure, there iss no central entity and no KYC, but trust in a third party does not completely disappear. It just shifts to trusting the code to be bug-free.

Well yeah, it's one of the rough edges, don't trust but verify, but by verifying doesn't necessarily mean we can get to know zero day exploit.

We just verify the code is working as intended. The thing is, if the exploit was caused by a bug, does that mean there is some level of trust on third party or we simply didn't do a good job verifying it?

My opinion is that, we didn't do the job good enough but I believe the principles still holding up.

[hmbdofficial]

— Transparency:  make sure that transactions and exchange system are publicly transparent. The less transparent, the more cautious you should be. If public transparency is weak, the exchange or wallet should be well monitored or regulated by governments/third-party services, and there should be some sort of compensation incase of fund lose. But never handover funds or private data you can't afford to risk to such exchange or wallet to hold, unless you are sure about your safety and that of your funds. But don't be too sure if you are not extraordinarily secured by SOMETHING ELSE

Actually transparency is one future about bitcoin that’s clear, but I want to point this also that before trusting any bitcoin services with your funds, you need to be careful and understand how it work even if they are transparent enough. Learn to know what risk are involved, and what protection are available if something eventually goes wrong. You should never assume that your funds are safe because a company looks reputable enough to or claim to be secure. The less you can independently verify things, the more cautious you should be. One thing I learnt about bitcoin is that the reducing the need to trust third parties can be important, but even the self custody requires proper security because losing your private keys or exposing them can lead to loss of bitcoin forever.

[kingstep]

— Transparency:  make sure that transactions and exchange system are publicly transparent. The less transparent, the more cautious you should be. If public transparency is weak, the exchange or wallet should be well monitored or regulated by governments/third-party services, and there should be some sort of compensation incase of fund lose. But never handover funds or private data you can't afford to risk to such exchange or wallet to hold, unless you are sure about your safety and that of your funds. But don't be too sure if you are not extraordinarily secured by SOMETHING ELSE

One thing I learnt about bitcoin is that the reducing the need to trust third parties can be important, but even the self custody requires proper security because losing your private keys or exposing them can lead to loss of bitcoin forever.

Even at that, being the one in charge of your security is still better than allowing a third party do that for you. what is the worse case scenario? you are careless with your keys and misplace it? that is what most persons are afraid of, they don't want to take the responsibility of being in control of their asset but needs another person to be in control of it. if you value your asset enough, you will pay attention to ensuring it security.

We can always do personal vetting and bring it to the forum for further validation before using any bitcoin related service that we don't completely trust. it is easier doing it than risking becoming victim of scam.

[AprilioMP]

When people are reminded to be careful in public spaces, the message is to be cautious about activities that make it easy for others to discover a user’s Bitcoin address. In this regard, there’s a reminder not to use the same address too frequently. All of this is emphasized to prevent others from easily finding out the address.
Security depends on how we protect and use our addresses. Even if an address is secure, there have indeed been cases of Bitcoin theft carried out by criminals. Additionally, the reminder to be cautious of phishing links is intended solely to thwart the initial attempts of these criminals.

[348Judah]

What else are we doing in the Bitcoin network when we cannot achieve privacy and maintain high security standards? Are we trying to risk our investment in it, or are we just playing dumb in pretence, as if we don't know the risks ahead?

Using a centralized exchange or any platform that is being regulated is not safe for us any longer; recent events should tell us more about why we should avoid them and embrace privacy for true decentralization. take

[TheUltraElite]

Even if an address is secure, there have indeed been cases of Bitcoin theft carried out by criminals. Additionally, the reminder to be cautious of phishing links is intended solely to thwart the initial attempts of these criminals.

No harm is using multiple addresses or generate a new address per every receiving event.

But even more than that we have to be able to secure our devices properly. One single mistakenly downloaded malware will lead to the entire system getting into the hands of hackers and we will lose the coins.

Today so many exchanges and casinos are the targets of hacking, one needs to be careful not to store coins on them, change passwords and set up 2FA and leave no stone upturned to secure them.

[Davidloki]

This is an important topic that needs the attention of newbies that are unfamiliar with bitcoin investment.  Not every exchange that hold your bitcoin is secured, in the real sense, exchanges are not secured to hold your bitcoin because they control your keys and in a situation where it is hacked there is every possibility that your details will be leaked.

Few things to check before using an exchange aside what you mentioned is: how the exchange resolved past customer complaints, reliable withdrawals and other regulations guiding it.

[Multani Boy]

Well yeah, it's one of the rough edges, don't trust but verify, but by verifying doesn't necessarily mean we can get to know zero day exploit.

We just verify the code is working as intended. The thing is, if the exploit was caused by a bug, does that mean there is some level of trust on third party or we simply didn't do a good job verifying it?

My opinion is that, we didn't do the job good enough but I believe the principles still holding up.

Yes, both can be true. Although we are not able to find all zero days even after doing a proper verification we cannot say just because there was a bug the verification was done poorly. However, it also demonstrates the difference between "trustless" as in not relying on a third party but trusting the actual software implementation. Bisq can still apply the same principles, but obviously the code itself has risks.