Everything You Want to Know About Coinfirm's Dash Integration for AML/KYC Compliance

[100-yard]

... I believe that banana sellers are not part of this group

Banana sellers are not yet part of this [AML/KYC] group, but they probably should be.

Imagine I'm selling my bananas to total strangers, people I know absolutely nothing about. Unfortunately for me it turns
out that one of these buyers is actually a <insert the most totally evil human behavior you can possibly imagine here>.
(such that in fact if I knew this I'd probably literally run away! I don't know, so I sell my bananas and the evil buyer leaves.)

At the end of the day I'll try to deposit my banana sales proceeds with <insert Coinfirm's most important client here>.
This is not going to turn out well. (Best case: I lose my bananas. Worst case: I lose a lot more than bananas.)

... people have increasingly realised that the sudo-anonymity of bitcoin like blockchains are increasingly being eroded. Dash was forked from bitcoin exactly for this reason. ...

... It's one thing to say they will do this anyway, but it's another thing to actively assist them. ...

I agree completely, and that was very well said.

 

[kot]

@100-yard - a hint for you: if you are not sure with whom you are dealing with and you don't want to check it by yourself, use PrivateSend option in the wallet so you will not lose any of your bananas.
This is why it is implemented there.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

@100-yard - a hint for you: if you are not sure with whom you are dealing with and yo udon't want to check it by yourself, use PrivateSend option in the wallet so you will not lose any of your bananas.

So once he's accepted PrivateSend for his bananas and then wants to use that money... phone contract (involves credit check), to an exchange (possibly marked as proceeds from criminal activity), or to a family member (whom in turn maybe marked as possibly money laundering). It's not about a single transaction, it's about the history, that some coins / transactions are considered cleaner than others.

How can dash possibly claim to be "digital cash" when sudo-anonymity on the block chain is being ripped from it's roots. Coinfirm and it's conspiring partners are effectively labelling users of Private Send as potential criminals. AND YOU SUPPORT THEM.

I have absolutely NO IDEA why you would deny such basic facts, and more so considering your background in AML / KYC. Personally, I think you're a cancer to the dash project and you're here to derail things. Why else would you defend AML / KYC so staunchly instead of challenging Evan directly with his own words regarding fungibility? Better still, let's summon here and see what he's got to say about it... @eduffield

 

[GrandMasterDash]

The core team have a choice - some might say a responsibility - to use their time and resources to either defend dash's blockchain from an increasingly aggressive AML / KYC invasion, or assist companies like Coinfirm so that end users are tracked and ostracised from Private Send transactions.

No one ever voted for the core team to assist Coinfirm in such affairs. That's something everyone here should be concerned with.

 

[oaxaca]

Yeah, this is the world I want to see:

 

[GrandMasterDash]

First of all, an apology to @kot for my personal attack. I stand by my criticisms of the way in which the core team willfully perverted dash's privacy. However, I was wrong to personalise so much.

Many here will remember how Evan once held a vote to increase the block size. The vote was more symbolic than anything because, as you know, we can't compel people to do something they don't want. By holding the vote, Evan was demonstrating the budget system and allowing MNOs to express their wishes going forward.

The fundamental idea behind dash's budget system is to allows the project to grow and evolve in a fair and transparent manner. If, however, core team members are working on unapproved projects that have a material impact on dash's core functionality - e.g. privacy - then I would say it is very unethical to do so without a vote from MNOs, not least because they could of been directing their efforts elsewhere (strengthening dash's fungibility). The act of willfully assisting Coinfirm is effectively sleeping with the enemy, but in any event should not go ahead without consent from MNOs.

 

[t0dd]

All you got to do is go to coinmarketcap and look at charts for the last two months, it's not that hard.

Yup. It's not that hard. Pretty much flat for months and months. Now look at 6 months. A year.

As for big data and profiling and what not. There is nothing that changes the situation already at hand. There is no additional exposure. There is no loss of fungibility. There is no change in privacy.

Every person I transact with with either be public for scrutiny... or not. That's up to me. The safe assumption for anyone is that all of your transactions are under scrutiny. Plan accordingly.

When people and transactions are mapped and plugged into AI, it causes people to change their behaviour. Are we here to support that? When you live in a country where abortion is illegal and frowned upon, that maybe the sale of alcohol is refused because that person (or an acquaintance) recently bought a pregnancy test.

This is not "support". This is acknowledgement of reality. I don't like KYC/AML regulations, but there are going to be entrances and exits into the fiat world that require them.

Mixing coins becomes problematic and creates a one-way street. Once you mix the coins, suddenly your options for spending become limited, because a growing list of people will refuse to accept them.

How has that changed in the slightest?

Anyway. Governments wanting to track transactions is not something I like or am comfortable with (but it will happen / is-happening anyway). That being said... if we want Dash to be used in the world of fiat, we can keep converting to Bitcoin, enter the world of KYC and fiat there. Or we work with 3rd party entities so Dash can be leveraged just as easily in such a manner. But, just like Bitcoin, only if the coin-holder chooses to work within that system.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Yup. It's not that hard. Pretty much flat for months and months. Now look at 6 months. A year.

As for big data and profiling and what not. There is nothing that changes the situation already at hand. There is no additional exposure. There is no loss of fungibility. There is no change in privacy.

Every person I transact with with either be public for scrutiny... or not. That's up to me. The safe assumption for anyone is that all of your transactions are under scrutiny. Plan accordingly.

Re-read what I've been saying instead of changing it. I didn't say 6 months or a year, that's your invention. I said the trend has been downward since the Legal proposals and this stupid Coinfirm arrangement. As I write this post, the price is $10.90. But fine, just sit there and ignore the facts in front of you.

The safe assumption is that privacy is being further eroded with every new partner that Coinfirm conspires with. Companies like Coinfirm go way beyond the scrutiny of a single transaction. They don't just build detailed profiles of you and your transactions, they analyse and join data from many sources. "Plan accordingly" to what exactly? - by the time you've received dash, they've been tainted and their history analysed yet you're not privy to that information because, while the block chain is transparent, Coinfirm themselves are far from transparent... they're not going to open up their data and show you how they connected the dots.

Block chain = public scrutiny, but Coinfirm = secret data and processes.

This is not "support". This is acknowledgement of reality. I don't like KYC/AML regulations, but there are going to be entrances and exits into the fiat world that require them.

....unless you use hard cash, but then again, when hard cash is eradicated, then what? Does dash have the properties worthy of the name "digital cash"? - clearly not.

How has that changed in the slightest?

Anyway. Governments wanting to track transactions is not something I like or am comfortable with (but it will happen / is-happening anyway). That being said... if we want Dash to be used in the world of fiat, we can keep converting to Bitcoin, enter the world of KYC and fiat there. Or we work with 3rd party entities so Dash can be leveraged just as easily in such a manner. But, just like Bitcoin, only if the coin-holder chooses to work within that system.

"just like bitcoin" are the key words here... a lot of users want better privacy, not the same as bitcoin.

 

[demo]

The fundamental idea behind dash's budget system is to allows the project to grow and evolve in a fair and transparent manner. If, however, core team members are working on unapproved projects that have a material impact on dash's core functionality - e.g. privacy - then I would say it is very unethical to do so without a vote from MNOs, not least because they could of been directing their efforts elsewhere (strengthening dash's fungibility). The act of willfully assisting Coinfirm is effectively sleeping with the enemy, but in any event should not go ahead without consent from MNOs.

Once again someone argues about unethical. If someone is unethical when doing something, he is only half unethical. There is also the other unethical half part, the ones which allow the unethical person to do what he did. There is nothing really unethical, the core team behaves like that because you, the stupid whales, allowed them to do so.

If you demand them to rewrite the code of dash in a reflective way, and thus let the whales capable to change the code in the runtime by voting the appropriate code plugins, then the core team will never work for unapproved projects again. Because these projects will not get voted and will not run in the runtime, so it will be futile for them to work for such projects.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Once again someone argues about unethical. There is nothing really unethical, the core team behaves like that because you, the stupid whales, allowed them to do so.

If you rewrite the code of dash in a reflective way, and thus let the whales capable to change the code in the runtime by voting the appropriate code plugins, then the core team will never work for unapproved projects again. Because these projects will not get voted and will not run in the runtime, so it will be futile for them to work for such projects.

It's not even that. The solution is to put version control on the MN network and make it immutable, enforcing upgrades through voting, thus doing so with a clear mandate. Funny how all these tech-heads preach the wonders of an immutable block chain for voting yet are totally unwilling to trust their own code to such a mechanism. It's pathetic.

 

[demo]

It's not even that. The solution is to put version control on the MN network and make it immutable, enforcing upgrades through voting, thus doing so with a clear mandate. Funny how all these tech-heads preach the wonders of an immutable block chain for voting yet are totally unwilling to trust their own code to such a mechanism. It's pathetic.

Yes , this is the easy solution. This could be the first step. But the final solution is the reflection. Because the nature of things requires often something to change immediatly, in the runtime, and not waiting for code versions to be released as upgrades or (even worse) installed manually.

And yet, a (voted) upgrade is not considered as pure reflection. In a pure reflective code, all possible behaviors of the code are already inside the code, and the most preferable behavior is ignited by voting it and it executes in the runtime, while the rest unapproved code chunks are also into the release and they just sleep. So in a pure reflective code you do not reject code chunks. You do not force a monolithic behavior to be the only one residing into the upgrade. You allow all kind of code chunks to be there, and you just deny to some of them to run in the runtime (by not voting them).

I hope you understand what I am talking about.