Replying to Avatar Matt Corallo

It’s far from that simple. Most sensible jurisdictions have no such requirement, and having software broadly available encourages them to add such a thing. AFAIK the only jurisdiction with any such requirement is Switzerland, and it’s also not clear at all what would or would not meet the requirements. The requirements aren’t defined technically they’re defined broadly, simply signing that it’s your address and the exchange checking Chainanalysis might well suffice.
Avatar
remyers 2y ago

The recent European regulations do not have aopp like requirements, but it seems inevitable from the tone of this legislation they will. Individual countries may also decide to interpret it in a way similar to the Swiss if you withdraw to self custody. We should not make it easy to "over comply" by signing to prove control of our self custodial addresses.

If they want to make that a requirement they can implement it and users should have an appropriate amount of fear/resistance for using such systems.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Michael Anton Fischer 2y ago

The whole point is that you cannot take features out, not that this use is great.

Avatar
Matt Corallo 2y ago

Sure you can, especially when no one uses them so they won’t be missed today!

Avatar
Matt Corallo 2y ago

It seems like quite a jump to say that the current regs that they’ve spent a ton of time building don’t have such a requirement but but they’re definitely gonna add it? Do you know something the rest of us don’t?

More generally, the push should be that there’s no way to practically verify, and exchanges instead should get users to agree and then do risk based analysis, not push users into a nuts protocol.

Avatar
remyers 2y ago

I'm just being pessimistic, no inside info. Governments are trending towards wanting more and more of people's (previously) confidential transaction information. The EUR 1000 cash purchase limit is an example of this insanity.

It's something we should push back against and so I support your proposal.🙂

Avatar
Matt Corallo 2y ago

I’d much rather we fight those regs than give in. Travel rule is a thing but the compliance needs to focus on the exchange -> exchange transactions, where the rule applies, rather than forcing the exchange -> user transactions to add more complexity.

Avatar
Michael Anton Fischer 2y ago

The point remains that we need to add innovation to obsolete the feature or better break the surveillance use case.

If you take it out you fragment the versions in the network and long term likely force a chain split.

And travel rule and Mica require verification that goes much beyond just signing a message, so if you want to take it out to snub regulators, you are only snubbing the more privacy focused ones like the Swiss, not the evil jurisdictions.