Quote from: polylogic on February 20, 2018, 12:24:28 AM

Quote from: Nimiq on February 18, 2018, 10:07:19 PM

We strongly disagree, after studying every option carefully It is the safe and responsible way to do it, if you think different is your personal (uninformed) opinion. You're entitled to it, but if you think it is 'lazy, cheap and irresponsable' your are plain wrong, is exactly the opposite. How can we guarantee all that? The KYC provider follows strict legal regulations and using the data without our consent is punished by law as a crime.

so you cannot guarantee that, exactly my point.
it is not your problem if the 3rd party gets legal trouble or might be punished by law.
and its not your problem if our data gets stolen, i understand that.
and i understand that i might sound paranoid, but i cannot stress this enough.
unless you have a continuing finanacial relationship with some website then you shouldnt send out your personal information
for example, in germany facebook just lost in court that people dont have to use their real names.

We do guarantee that by using the best providers available with the safest and strictest regulations possible. Our KYC provider is currently used by businesses like Coinbase and Bittrex, where the data of the users is also very sensitive. We are paranoid about security too and we are trying everything in our hands to keep the information of users safe.

Quote from: polylogic on February 20, 2018, 12:24:28 AM

i know you try to make me mad by calling me uninformed but you see me throwing around facts and carefull selected questions you cant seem to able awnser.

thats exactly what we need now, people with opinions. thats the only way stuff gets regulated the right way.

but i know using a 3rd party provider saves you so much work and money that there is no way in these times that you could do this yourself. or could you?
and maybe save the data securely encrypted inside of your chain. but why bother, its just the legal status of nimiq, lets hand this over to a 3rd party. noone can blame us if we loose the data.

And again, this is plain, unaltered, out-of-the-box FUD Grin

. You are saying we are giving information to a third party so we avoid responsibility in case of data loss? No, we most definitively are not. As I stated before, using a third party KYC provider is the safe and responsible thing to do. It is madness to think a Blockchain Startup would dedicate time and effort building a one-time-only KYC infrastructure!. We would not be able to focus on what we do: Native Payment Protocol to the Web. It is, from all points of view, the wisest decision to use a provider who actually dedicates to the complex business of ID verification and anti-money laundering filtering. It is super delicate too, and these guys have been doing it for years with sensitive information like passports verification for flights and crypto platforms. If you analyze it objectively I think the decision makes a lot of sense.

Quote from: polylogic on February 20, 2018, 12:24:28 AM

Quote from: Nimiq on February 18, 2018, 10:07:19 PM

Quote from: polylogic on February 18, 2018, 08:35:10 PM

Quote from: Nimiq on February 16, 2018, 07:37:16 AM

Quote from: polylogic on February 16, 2018, 01:52:42 AM

kyc in this case is only a "lets go the save route" for current laws that dont apply to the situation, which may destroy your reputation.

KYC is required at this point to ensure the project complies with regulations in several countries, this is obviously required for our project to be a success which is ultimately our main goal.

this is actually not true and you cannot point me to some law stating that you are required to do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer

How can you know it is not true?. Again you are using your personal opinion as a fact. Our legal team has strongly adviced us to proceed with KYC. Nimiq is an open source payment protocol and our main goal is for it to be the native payment protocol of the web and we do trust our legal team is aligned with the same vision. If you want to enter into a debate based on your opinions about KYC and wikipedia links you are very welcome to do so, but it just has nothing to do with our project.

because i know there is no court rule to enforce this. otherwise this would be all over the news and unless we dont have any laws and regulations everything we do creates the path into the future.
and thats exactly the time when people need to stand up and tell their opinion, tell that they are not ok with how some uninformed people want to run things.
i know you dont want to fight that fight and thats why you want to comply a little bit, but not all the way.
and there are no facts that proove you are right. and unless you cant proove that you "have to" then it simply is not true... the old rule... thats how i know its not based on my opinion.
seriously, why do you worry about kyc when ethereum didnt.
but yes, the opinion of your (i would like to think (because of what i said) "uninformed") legal team is better be save than sorry. maybe they should think about their jobs and how much they could do once the legal trouble sets in because you didnt let some 3rd party grab all that data. i think yes, they want to go the save and easy route, who wants to fight for privacy right? ^^

Blockchain is changing the world and there are a lot of good players and bad players in that game. We want to be the leading payment protocol for the Web, this is a totally different field than Ethereum, these are different times than the time when Ethereum launched, and more importantly, we are a whole different project. In the future we might need to partner with E-commerce sites, Web Platforms, International Community, and... who know what new technologies will emerge in the future. Our research has demonstrated we will have a higher opportunity to succeed in our main goal if we require KYC in these part of the process, that way we are safe and ready for regulation and rules any of these organizations, it is not only governmental regulations we have to be prepared for. Sorry if you don't understand this, but it is for the sake of the project.

Quote from: polylogic on February 20, 2018, 12:24:28 AM

Quote from: Nimiq on February 18, 2018, 10:07:19 PM

Quote from: polylogic on February 18, 2018, 08:35:10 PM

if someone from the us invested in NET it should be his/her problem, not the problem on Nimiq.
he/she is supposed to know that he/she is not allowed to invest in oversea projects.
you cant be responsible for their action and for this dont have to put any borders on your crowdsale.

But we did.... I really feel like you are very much uninformed

First paragraph in 'NET (Token) Creation and Crowdsale Terms'... in bold with a bigger font size than the rest of the document

'IF YOU ARE A CITIZEN, RESIDENT, OR GREEN CARD HOLDER OF THE UNITED STATES OR IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS OF SALE, YOU CANNOT TAKE PART IN THE CROWDSALE, SO PLEASE DO NOT CONTRIBUTE IN THE CROWDSALE.'

We publicly commented from the beginning: US CITIZENS ARE NOT ALLOWED.

We blocked all IPs coming from the US to our website.

We included a paragraph about personal information:

'We may determine, for regulatory compliance purposes, that it is necessary to obtain certain information about you in order to comply with applicable laws or regulations in connection with accepting contributions to create and allocate NET to you or transfer NET to NIM. You agree to provide us such information promptly upon request.'

If you have any other questions please let me know, but I think you are mainly against KYC itself. We are not fans either but again, it is something we are required to do for the sake of the project. Thanks for your support

yes sorry i didnt remember all the terms from your crowdsale a couple of months back, so much has happened...
but you had the rule already, thats great, noone from the us invested, awesome.. now... why kyc again? maybe that the right question: why did your legal team advise you to?
and yes your right i am against the kyc for some obvious reasons. centralized databases of personal ids with no oversight. oh boy, the history of the internet prooves nothing is safe unless offline.
however, its looks like this is the fist time kyc is something i have to think about, sadly you cant give me much reason why kyc is a good idea for your project and why not everybody has to do it.
but thanks for trying

it was a pleasure

I'm also very romantic about decentralization and believe, I dream of a world where we can all fully benefit from it as a species. But I think that for that to happen we have to find a happy medium with the current regulations and continue moving forward to that dream. I'm really sorry if KYC is a true problem for you, I can tell you really support us and is not nice to ask a user to go through a process that they feel unhappy about. I really do hope you can understand our point of view and the reasons why we are doing this, and also continue supporting us.

I can conclude by telling you we honestly care a lot about the user's personal information, it will remain in the KYC provider only as long as strictly needed by us, and then they will delete it completely. And also that we wouldn't do this process if we didn't believe it will boost our potential for mainstream adoption. I hope you understand and I see around our community some time soon