If a *public* company that happens to be the biggest institutional holder of Bitcoin is not obliged to proof their reserves (which their entire stock value is anchored to) then I, as a *private* citizen, shouldn’t be forced to give proof of income to banks and institutions that service me.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

You did say “citizen” that’s Roman

If banks can KYC me, than I can KYC their employees. How do I know they're on the up and up? Maybe they're still doing some of the shady stuff that they've already been fined for, in the billions. I wouldn't want to be involved in any of that, now would I ?

If governments can KYC me, than I can KYC the politicians and all of the public employees. How do I know they're not using my money to bomb brown people somewhere (to quote George Carlin) ? I don't want to be involved in any of that either.

Fair is fair. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But I agree with Saylor on the security front concerning proof of reserves. Publishing addresses is a terrible idea. And signing anything where you'll end up publishing the public keys for addresses full of bitcoins (while keeping the btc in those addresses long term) is also pretty bad. There's a reason why we hash the public key to make the address.

#kyc #banks #btc #bitcoin #security

Arguably politicians are KYC’d; you know who they are

Driver's license or Passport. Proof of source of income. Verified address, verified phone number. Oh, and I need a selfie with the passport too. Fair is fair.