Thank you - I ask as the community asks me these questions I want to ensure I give them the appropriate reasons as to why its done a certain way
Currently I gather if you go through KYT process, you also have to accept risk of BTC Quarantine
If so, this is an acceptable answer, I can let the wider community know
I don’t understand your statement here. It’s not plausible for there to be an optional KYT for ckBTC. However, there can be a nonKYT version of ckBTC such as ckBTC-1, ckBTC-2, etc, but those would be different tokens with different policies applied. Anyone can spin up one of these alt ckBTC because DFINITY open sourced it. Hence, there is an option to deploy a version of ckBTC that doesn’t require KYT if someone decides to pursue it. Maybe it would be great for the IC if a nonKYT version of ckBTC exists, but I don’t believe that DFINITY is responsible for deploying it.
I have the opposite observation. I think this topic has been the perfect example of how the interests of DFINITY as an organization and the IC as a network are very much in alignment. I think the KYT issue is very important to protect ckBTC users and the proposal DFINITY has made seems well researched and fair to me. I also think DFINITY has been transparent in their presentation of the issues and the solution.
I agree with the point you made in the first two sentences, but disagree with the last sentence. I think decentralization is an important goal and DFINITY is the entity that has taken the most meaningful steps at pushing us toward decentralization of the protocol. In my opinion, decentralization is not achieved by constantly shouting insults and criticisms or trying to incite the mob. Decentralization comes from understanding the mechanisms that are built into the ICP to control change of the protocol and by a large number of people and organizations stepping up to actively contribute through their vote. In my observation, DFINITY would like to see more organizations contribute to decentralization at this protocol level.
For what it’s worth, I think you have typically been a sensible voice in this conversation and many other prior conversations and I think it would be a loss if you decide to discontinue your engagement on the forum.
I share the same perception - Dfinity has a huge impact, but as a foundation organization, it is at risk. I myself recognize that implementing KYT is not the best option, but I think it is the best option at this point if you have decided that the current situation is a legal risk. It is meaningful for the community to do what the foundation cannot do, which leads to decentralization.
I remain of the opinion that DAOs are free to behave as long as they do not infringe on anyone, and that is where the foundation and its members are the same. I do not think that repudiating actions is the only way to behave like a DAO.
I really do like your perspective.
I shared an article yesterday, and I had to take it down because I believed most people found it controversial.
However the point of the article was that, the US is not a monolithic country as many tend to believe. If you’ve lived in such a great country, you’ll be exposed to how diverse it is. Let’s say in this scenario with BTC; New York banned Bitcoin mining late last year… on the other hand Texas is incentivizing Bitcoin miners to the state. So this KYT with Bitcoin is big enough to go to congress before it can be considered a legit option. According to my understanding KYT is not a law in the US, so why should I abide by it. To make this reasonable; think about a situation where a Texas resident uses a BTC to covert it to ckbtc for personal use. Then the BTC is confiscated by the KYT provider. In Texas people love their freedom, hence they have extended the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure to BTC keys. Maybe I’m not understanding fully what that means because I first don’t live in Texas and second I am not a law maker in that state. However what that signals is that the Texas resident would forward the matter to their governor about their BTC being under unreasonable search and seizure. The governor would then go ahead and find out from OFAC why the KYT exists and make an accusation of federal overreach and oversight against the Texas resident. This is due to the nature of legal actions against Texas residents; you have to have a search warrant to make a legal search and seizure for anything to hold ground in a court of law. This makes the action of KYT unconstitutional. Maybe I am wrong, but I’m ready to be corrected by Texas residents or whoever has better understanding.
I am not sure I follow, I think I follow 60-70%.
a) it 100% it is NOT part of the protocol. I agree there is misconceptions that it is. That is why I have been saying it is not. Now that we agree it is not part of the protocol, can we agree that anyone can launch their own?
b) I think DFINITY’s version comes with some trust, but I think others could easily gain trust. I think this thread underestimates the trust one can gain in Web3 (specially using immutability). Ironically, i think i under-value the trust of large organizations (like dfinity) while see the web3 power of small teams or solo devs to gain trust and usage. Analogously in ETH, Uniswap is a smart contract that came form a relatively-unknown developer in ETH. But more importantly… ckBTC-like functionality can exist with many different versions. No reason any a user needs to choose the same implementation. People can choose what they wish.
I agree with you @FOX
Very fair feedback @theguy . Point taken.
Agreed with A but personally I’ve always agreed - its more for the people outside of here
b) Your view might be different but there isn’t very many builders in ICP that have strong trust across the board, a very “Tribal” area, and with Dfinity everyone is more comfortable since you have to trust dfinity as a baseline
Anyways just letting you know, not much to discuss on this one
I did misunderstand you. Thank you for correcting me.
I still think this is the best of possible sub-optimal choices (although I think i think better ones may present themselves from the community, specially around governance) As I wrote earlier:
Which is why it should be preferable for ckBTC to continue without KYT and then for Toniq and other exchanges to spin their own KYT-enabled version. Barring that, I don’t see how anyone in the IC space can claim with a straight face that ckBTC is a token that’s 1:1 equivalent to BTC
@Jan It’s hard to keep everyone happy, but after months of staying off line, exploring other blockchains, it’s nice to be back and see the InternetComputer has competent technical leadership that moves the project forward.
I applaud how you addressed criticism, and still found a way to deliver.
ckBTC is a welcome addition, and an important feature of any future IC DAPP.
ICP is not welcome everywhere, but Bitcoin is.
A whole generation of new apps that actually do something is coming.
Thank you.
I want to re-iterate this sentiment - its much appreciated and an initial shout to the outside that ICP is community oriented
A couple of thoughts:
Section 1: API Key Security Concerns
Holding an API key in a canister is not considered best practice due to the potential risks involved. In the event of a leak, KYT providers might suffer significant financial losses in the case of abuse.
Section 2: The Uniqueness of ckBTC
ckBTC has established itself as the de facto wrapped Bitcoin on the Internet Computer (IC). As a result, the name cannot be reused, and Dfinity will not promote alternative versions such as wBTC. This ensures that ckBTC maintains its prominence within the ecosystem.
Section 3: The Importance of NNS Control
People have come to trust ckBTC because it is under the control of the Network Nervous System (NNS). To maintain this trust, any subsequent wrapped Bitcoin implementations should also fall under NNS (or something with similar trust assumptions) control. However, doing so could become cumbersome and risky for developers, ensuring that ckBTC will always hold a special status since Dfinity will continue to vote on its proposals, but might not vote on proposals to manage other wrapped BTC implementations.
Section 4: Tainted BTC and Wrapping
Concerns have been raised regarding tainted Bitcoin after wrapping. @THLO mentioned that an attacker may lose their tainted BTC sent to the minter. It is unclear whether the minter returns or freezes the tainted BTC. In the event that the BTC becomes untainted, the ability to regain access is uncertain. Moreover, a coordinated attack could potentially allow an attacker to mint ckBTC before their BTC becomes tainted or have access to the API to check if their BTC is already considered tainted and only try and mint ckBTC in the case it isn’t.
Section 5: The Risks of Halting Minting
The worst-case scenario of halted minting can have severe consequences for the ecosystem. It could lead to disruptions in token supply, reduced liquidity, and a loss of confidence in the wrapped token. Therefore, it is crucial to address potential risks and maintain the stability and trustworthiness of wrapped tokens like ckBTC.
Welcome to the Dev forums, good to see more people taking part!
Really appreciate your thoughts on this!
What about if ICP just define the rules, who can mint the ckBTC:
Whitelisted entities. eg. dfinity, CEX, any other legal entities. (which they have done their own internal KYT and guarantee the BTC not tainted).
BTC miners with their virgin BTC.
then ckBTC would be incredibly centralised.
Not really if the whitelisted process is done through NNS/SNS votes. It is just reiterate the same way onboarding new node providers.
Your idea means ordinary users can’t mint ckbtc, right? If so, pass
It seems that we have run out of opinions for and against, so isn’t it time to submit a proposal?