no, KYC'ed bitcoin would skyrocket in price and non-KYC bitcoin would plummet due to lack of demand.
Gotcha, yes that’s a possible scenario although I really don’t know how it’s going to play out. But this validates my warning folks who think they won’t be unaffected by other people’s #bitcoin being KYCed while theirs won’t be.
The metaphor of “hiding like rats” is yours. Personally, I don’t see it this way. #Privacy is the fundamental human right and like for all these rights, they need to be exercise to be maintain as such.
I would need to research more about the specifics but my intuition is that although it’s possible, it wouldn’t be practical to implement and/or not scalable. It seems that #covenants would make it very easy and that’s why they are dangerous. Pointing this as the argument to justify that #covenants aren’t a threat seems weak.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I guess you meant to say that price of non-KYCed #bitcoin would reduce in supply and so increase in price.
I’m not convinced it will play out this way. First it will be interesting to see if we end up with two different exchange rates and whether those rates will be official listings or only surfaced through grey markets.
After, even if we have two rates, it’s not clear at all that non-KYCed Bitcoin will trade at a higher price because that is the Bitcoin that will be excluded from easy access to global liquidity. Also, it is the Bitcoin with the smaller network of acceptance so although non-KYCed Bitcoin will become more rare, their utility may also decrease. Also, non-KYCed bitcoins would directly compete with other #crypto such as #monero that are built for this specific scenario and that have feature that make them more attractive.
It’s also possible that we won’t see two different rates but in this case, it’s critical for non-KYCed #BTC to grow the network of acceptance because off-ramp to the fiat system won’t be allowed. Without a way to spend your bitcoins in a circular economy, you may end-up with a high priced but illiquid asset.
Without #privacy, freedom of transacting is a temporary privilege, if you want it to be a permanent right you must transact privately.
#Monero #XMR
I don’t think multisig could be used to attached spending conditions to an output forever like recursive covenants could. How would multi-sig do this?
If you’re not concerned about the looming threat of having two categories of #Bitcoin (KYCed bitcoins vs non-KYCed) that are not fungible with each other because you hold non-KYCed bitcoins. Think about how such a division will impact the network effect and liquidity of your holdings. Especially in a scenario where the supply of KYCed bitcoins is ever increasing through recursive covenants for every #BTC output that ever touch a regulated entity (exchange, miner, corporation etc.).
True no one can lock your #Bitcoin into a #covenant but are you not concerned for the value of your bitcoins that an ever growing share of the supply will be forcibly KYCed? With convenants, every Bitcoin that at one point touches a regulated entity (centralized exchange, ETF, miner, MicroStrategy, etc) will become a KYCed Bitcoin forever.
Just wait about the horrible nightmare in which you can only spend #Bitcoin to and from KYCed addresses because of #covenants.
Please, enlighten me. Why would #covenants not enable the capabilities I have described? Ad hominem attacks aren’t going to convince the plebs.
I’m surprised there is no more outrage from bitcoiners regarding #covenants. After doing a cursory research on the topic, it seems that covenants would mean the end of permissionless #Bitcoin and the generalization of #KYC-ed #BTC.
- Covenants can enforce spending outputs to KYCed addresses only.
- Covenants can enforce receiving BTC from KYCed addresses only
- #Covenant rules applied to a given output would propagate to future spending of this output.
In short, all BTC leaving a regulated entity could only be spend to KYCed addresses forever.
Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen the plebs being outrage about this risk for Bitcoin. I heard a lot more criticism about #drivechains though. This tell me that some of the vocal opposition is either controlled opposition or uninformed.
#OPCAT #OPCTV #drivechain
I don’t know if this is technically accurate but I have the feeling that convenants may be used to enforce sending your #Bitcoin to KYCed only addresses.
I really like Venice.ai, a decentralized, uncensored and private alternative to #ChatGPT launched by Erik Voorhees on the #MorpheusAI network. You can switch between models including Llama3 and Stable Diffusion). Also, if you have #MOR tokens on your wallet you’re directly upgraded to the PRO plan (which gives you access to a share of the decentralized compute network). This is definitely the future of #AI agents!
#VeniceAI #OpenSource
The US administration is advancing its plan for the implementation of a #DigitalID.
#CBDC #TheGreatReset
As I said in my other reply, stability would be the opposite of volatility in relation to inflation. Again, if you buy Bitcoin at the top of a cycle you’re going to see your purchasing power decrease for a lot for several months/years. Store of value is different from an investment. A good investment isn’t necessarily stable in price.
Yes, I went by a common framework that doesn’t contain this property but I don’t disagree that privacy as its own category would make sense.
Yes, low volatility relatively to an inflation index.
I think this is a fair point. I just didn’t consider the current supply but rather looked at the supply of the long term and well as its predictability.
I don’t think privacy is typically a property for a store of value (not that it’s not an important property especially for medium of exchanges). However, I considered privacy in the “acceptability” property as we can see that non-private coins can make them less fungible and less likely to be universally accepted.