> Mints can pick and choose which users they want to steal from on the basis of any test they come up with, e.g. "Well only steal from North Koreans, or only from women, or only from Jeremy Hudson from Mobile, Alabama"
FTFY
Discussion
How would they know that information?
> ...but only if the user volunteers this info. So don't volunteer it.
FTFY again. This is fun!
> ...and thus lose your money, completing the proof: mints can enforce KYC requirements against any user and penalize the noncompliant
FTFY again, I agree it's fun
It's just faster to say shotgun KYC.
Yes, and I often do
But then people continue to advertise that ecash mints have perfect privacy so then I make threads like this one where I spell out exactly how they can compromise the privacy of any individual user or group of users with a penalty of loss-of-funds if they don't comply
Which means they are perfectly capable of enforcing shotgun KYC
Whereas a protocol with *actual* perfect privacy wouldn't have anyone in a position to enforce *any* kind of KYC
I think you are conflating custodianship with privacy. Any custodian can apply pressure by withholding people's money. This fact doesn't mean anything about the privacy of a protocol.
Privacy is the question of whether someone can deanonymize your activities through some kind of information leakage. Ecash has really really good privacy properties and it is a custodial system.
Judging from this and other conversations I get the impression that you believe custody trumps privacy in some kind of absolute sense. I see a future with blended custody models: transact with ecash, save with bitcoin. Together, these tools are greater than the sum of their parts.