Good question, I don’t know.
When tipping your post, why should KYC be required to use custodial services? (see bottlepay history)
If your response is average people don’t care, then we’re not doing them any favors by allowing it to happen.
Business have regs to follow, and as predicted by many, these regs are changing in an unfavorable way toward Bitcoin.
If an individual running their own Lightning node gets blocked from purchasing coffees from a merchant that only accepts Lightning from a Lightning KYC/AML only provider, then not only does the spirit of Jack Mallers die, but we might as well start unplugging all the nodes because we lost the plot.
Can we just set KYC/AML laws and regulations off to the side for a second, and really just focus on the implications of an economy in which most economic transactions are mostly anonymous. I'm just trying to focus in on what the potential implications within the private sphere are here, and considering how the increased risk trade offs would actually have very undesirable economic costs, due to extremely high transactional loss rates. And then trying to understand why anyone would believe that an ethical position around privacy would prevail in the face of these negative economic incentives.
The fact you are admitting you don't have an answer in the first sentence, suggests to me that your vision of the likely future may not be as cleverly thought through as you might have first thought.
Oh, I was being nice. And trying to encourage conversation. I was not trying to assume anything about your questions or statements.
I have thought it out. Conventional commerce will continue. Maybe repetition brokers will be more distributed in the future.
Where can I read more about “extremely high transactional loss rates”? I’m only comparing the privacy issue to what a cash forward society might have looked like, before the more paper trail financial technologies were invented. What impact did having less cash transactions have on a society with regard to loss rate?
I mean, I work in an industry where I see fraudsters making off with people’s money all the time. Usually by pretending to be people who they aren’t. This results in the loss of billions of dollars from individuals, businesses and payment processors. The idea that they costs wouldn’t go up in a world where everyone presented themselves as anonymous or pseudo-anonymous to each other, strains credulity for me. And if fraud losses go up, then prices and effective transaction costs will, too.
If you pretend to be me, how would you spend my sats if I’m running my own Lightning node?
I'm not sure I'm following the point of the hypothetical?
You’re claiming anonymous or pseudo-anonymous actors bring in more fraud risk, correct? So when dealing with Lightning how would you introduce more fraud? I thought it actually might reduce the fraud you mentioned, that of when a retailer is paid with a fraudulent transaction by someone pretending to be someone else.
Relying on payment technology, rather than ID technology may actually do a better job at reducing the fraud, because you can’t pretend to be me and buy gas with my sats if I’m running my own Lightning node.
Stick with the e-commerce use case. In person payments are one thing. Obviously, cash is an anonymous system, and that works fine for in-person retail payments. But go back to the diamond ring example. How do you safely buy something like that anonymously, without extreme risk of rugpulls in the form of non-delivery of goods or services?
A bills of lading model is the best I’ve been able to come up with for this problem. Know third party carriers facilitating the anonymous transactions for a fee.
Why will the average person jump through such hoops?
They probably won’t, they will likely use conventional methods.
If people find value in anonymous transactions, they will continue to work on those efforts.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
