gandlaf21 on Nostr: Thanks! Appreciate it. I see 3 possibilities regarding this considering the current ...
Thanks! Appreciate it.
I see 3 possibilities regarding this considering the current environment:
1. They are registered businesses, that have to implement some form of kyc. A kyc'ed ecash custodian could still be an improvement over a regular one, depending on how it is implemented. If you can do private p2p transactions, that would be something a regular custodial service cannot offer you, but a kyc'ed ecash service could, by leveraging blind authentication. I still think this is pretty lame, and I'm not sure if i'd use it.
2. They are small enough to not be a target,. Imagining hundreds of small cyber banks all for small scale payments. Not very useful for money laundering, so likely not targets for law enforcement.
3. They operate in the shadows or in a jurisdiction that doesn't discriminate against privacy. I wouldn't be surprised if we see either/or in the future.
Of course these are only for the "payments service" usecase.
What do you think, did I miss any?
I see 3 possibilities regarding this considering the current environment:
1. They are registered businesses, that have to implement some form of kyc. A kyc'ed ecash custodian could still be an improvement over a regular one, depending on how it is implemented. If you can do private p2p transactions, that would be something a regular custodial service cannot offer you, but a kyc'ed ecash service could, by leveraging blind authentication. I still think this is pretty lame, and I'm not sure if i'd use it.
2. They are small enough to not be a target,. Imagining hundreds of small cyber banks all for small scale payments. Not very useful for money laundering, so likely not targets for law enforcement.
3. They operate in the shadows or in a jurisdiction that doesn't discriminate against privacy. I wouldn't be surprised if we see either/or in the future.
Of course these are only for the "payments service" usecase.
What do you think, did I miss any?