The thing is, non-KYC is amazing, but current laws are not design for it, therefore, non-KYC will always be 'bad' in the eyes governments, until education and a new set of laws come to place. Obsolete human regulation only drives countries to a pit fall while the ones in power benefit, you know how that goes.
So I think what Jack Maller does is not more or less ethical, Bitcoin is for everyone. His approach just as many others is more akin to a trojan horse, but no a War Trojan horse, rather a evangelistic one. People convert to #Bitcoin, not the other way around. Additionally, to run a business and expand within the current political landscape, you need to KYC, and that's the goal of Jack, expand everywhere like Jehovah Witnesses.
Non-KYC is the best, I foresee a future were regulations of KYC are dropped, it only creates a giant honeypot for hackers and centralize all the power in the hands of a few, that is how we stag. Also, non-KYC is sometimes the only thing that you can buy, in some governments leaves you at too much risk if you buy the it the non p2p way.
Maybe we won't even have to care about KYC or Non-KYC in the future, because the only way to get your hands on some sats is to work for it. Hope that by then, regulations are not just for the few in power, but to really avoid getting fucked by scammers, although that may be too much to ask.
Thanks for the response, I'm trying to learn about the different perspectives in order to see what's best for my personal circumstances. I also think there might be a time people will mainly earn in BTC and kyc/non-kyc will become irrelevant, the current lines of thinking I see are the following:
1. The optimist, perhaps naive to some:
If I think BTC will be the world's money eventually, wouldn't it be better to stack "cheaper" (kyc) sats? Buying non-kyc will only mean being "poorer" in the future. Plus with wealth, you can vote with your feet and go where you're treated best (living in [various] smaller less controlling nations that are actually competing for foreign capital).
2. The cautious, perhaps a doomer to some:
The world might transition to using bitcoin but it might be a bumpy ride with governments trying to steal and control as much as they can before going out. Buying non-kyc increases my chances of keeping some of that bitcoin in the future.
I think the optimal way of thinking lies somewhere in between. The optimist runs a larger risk of his private information being leaked to hackers or governments. The cautious will have to spend their BTC eventually (for a house, a car or something) and never make a privacy mistake, because if he/she lacks proper UTXO management or whatever, their BTC stash amount could be known and even have their identity discovered. Making all/most of their privacy enhancing measures irrelevant.
Somewhere in between for those who can afford it and don’t live in an autoritaria government, non KYC for governments that tend to harass their citizens, KYC as a convenient way to stack more sats
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
