Everyone talks about privacy but the point is not only about privacy, giving or not your personal info. It's also about the fact that you use a 3rd party to make a deal/Transaction and that's exactly what Satoshi wanted to avoid. Transaction from Alice directly to Bob. Not Alice send a transaction to ABCDcompany that checks the payment and then forward it to BOB after checking again some info on Bob

Quote from: Wind_FURY on Today at 12:21:09 PM

I believe anti-ethical is the wrong term. Centralized services are merely protecting their business. But if KYC, if possible, was coded in the protocol itself, and the developers claim "freedom", "hard money", "anti-censorship", then yes that would be anti-ethical.

This.
It could be probably better to use the term "against the ideology" but I agree with you on protecting their business. But that's not as if we didn't have any alternative to centralized platforms. The person using such are simple people who really give a fuck to some of the ideology

Quote from: Coin_trader on Today at 12:29:14 PM

Quote from: 95Bolu on Today at 11:01:46 AM

When i first heard about bitcoin, one of the selling points then was the pseudo anonymity. But as of recently, it is hard to purchase any crypto without encountering a form of KYC.

I’m just curious of everyone’s thought on this.

To remain anonymous is only possible if people will not convert Bitcoin to Fiat. All things change when Fiat is already involved since it was already covered by the law. Since Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, Businesses that accepting it needs to abide the AML policy to all there customer just have there business permit to operate. The idea of being anonymous Bitcoin is only within the Bitcoin blockchain itself and not on the outside market.

Not true.
banknotes can be anonymous. Gold, and other metals too