> ...but only if the user volunteers this info. So don't volunteer it.
FTFY again. This is fun!
Discussion
> ...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.