Quote from: n0nce on June 11, 2022, 10:18:57 PM

In the end, even if implementing privacy on protocol level would solve all our issues and exchanges & authorities would suddenly accept that they can't easily track Bitcoin anymore (highly unlikely in my opinion), I'd like to bring up one question. Do the people who currently use Bitcoin with 0 privacy (who would gain some by this procedure), deserve it? Do people who are ready to sell out their own PII without blinking twice, who are ready to run with all the 'criminal tainted UTXO' nonsense, deserve protocol-level protections of their privacy?

Yes. Privacy is a human right.

Quote from: Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

If privacy is guaranteed at a protocol level, you don't need (to rely on) laws to protect you. Many people don't care about many things, but improving it makes it better for everyone. Including the people who couldn't care less.

Quote

Because everyone who actually cares about privacy and Bitcoin as a whole, can already use Bitcoin pretty privately as of today, without (risky and time consuming / costly) protocol changes.

In the beginning, there was no taint. Now there are "lists of tainted coins". Unless they're "unlisted" again after the FED sells them, the number will only increase. It's like religion: even if you don't believe it exists, you're still bothered by it.

Quote from: Poker Player on Today at 06:24:01 AM

If Best Change is unreliable, it's not just a matter of not using their services. The responsible users of the forum should not advertise it in their signature either. There are currently 24 members in the Best Change campaign and one vacancy for which people are constantly applying.

Up to the point where BestChange went with the "taint" BS, I had recommended them several times and started to trust them. After this, I'll be more careful recommending them, and even though I still trust their service, it changed my view on them.

Quote from: Poker Player on Today at 06:24:01 AM

By the way, to me what Best Change says doesn't sound crazy at all, and if it's so wrong that statement

Let's highlight this part:

Quote from: Best_Change on May 26, 2022, 05:33:41 AM

AML purity for cryptocurrency transactions has become as important a property as it is for fiat currencies.

It's totally different! If I deposit money to my bank, they may ask me how I got the money, but they won't hold the previous use of that money against me.

Quote

I don't see why he hasn't been debated on that point in the thread.

It seemed futile there.

Quote

The same will happen with Wasabi signature campaign, good luck trying to convince people not to participate in the campaign.

Most people's loyalties are flexible when it comes to earning money. But informing them is the first stap: if they don't know about it, they can't take an informed decision.

Quote

The casino I advertise has KYC requirements, like most of them.

That's another thing: I would never send my documents to Costa Rica! Let me quote the website right right next to their registered address: "We accpet gambling". That doesn't sound like a company I'd trust with my identity.
Isn't it funny they're licensed in Curacao but don't allow users from Curacao to use their site?