Haha, I honestly got a laugh out of that one.
I always appreciate your responses. I personally don’t have a position on this right now, but I do think DFINITY regularly expresses exceedingly lofty goals.
@dominicwilliams recently tweeted:
Satoshi’s philosophy was: “remove intermediaries.”
Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought it was fair to point out that this particular implementation seems to disregard that philosophy.
2 Likes
I think I over stated how much I think it would be “overkill.” I am not THAT opinionated on it TBH.
I was only (slightly) bearish on it because the tone of dialogue seemed to be very “protocol-ish” and protocol implies “this is the only way”. While there could be infinite smart contracts with infinitely different rules.
1 Like
I think that is very fair. We at DFINITY do aspire to lofty goals, so good point
So i think I should clarify what is the “lofty” goal that I thought was beyond the intent: I think the lofty goal of creating a smart contract that deliberately has tainted BTC (leading to bad user experiences for many, many people) just to make a point about US law and neutrality was not really productive or concrete.
I do think that removing intermediaries is a valid goal. I guess in this case, the clear intermediary are CEXs (vs DEXs). I agree we need more DEXs.
I am not sure (and I am not trying to score points or ask a trick question) how DFINITY disregards this philosophy in this case. At worst, i see the smart contract shedding light on an existing intermediary (CEXs), but it did not create or worsen them. But i concede, I may be missing your point.
See the problem here anyone that’s anti KYT is automatically termed as Anti American. The problem would only get worse with time.
To be fair, I did not write you were “anti-American.” I understood (and wrote) you did “not like US Laws” because that is what I gathered from the following statements:
However, to be fair to you… I will retract my statement with the understanding that “not liking US laws” is unfairly broad misrepresentation of your intent, while “not liking US laws that lead to KYT” is more accurate. Is that right?
If so, are you suggesting that the canister just have NO KYT but maybe warn users that the BTC they get may not be able to be exchanged in CEXs? I am just trying to understand what you envision.
Also, would you be equally concerned if a lone developer in Mexico deployed a ckBTC-like canister with KYT? Or would you write it off as “anyone can deploy anything, anyone can use whatever smart contract they want”?
My understanding is that this will
- Validate KYT as a concept by legitimizing its use through a DFINITY built smart contract
- Promote KYT in practice by facilitating payments to organizations dedicated to it
I don’t have a solution, and I sincerely am searching for one. But I do think some concern is justified.
1 Like
I understand what you mean: the idea that “validating KYT as a concept” is a tricky one because symbols and validation matter in some abstract hard-to-quantify ways.
I just think reasonable compromise is “choose all”:
- DFINITY build a
ckBTCthat has high guarantees that users will get BTC they can trade (no surprises) - DFINITY open source the work done so community can deploy their own with any permutations of rules they wish
My personal opinion (not DFINITY’s) is I think the “KYT vs not KYT” debate is best solved in the market of users/creators.
4 Likes
If this is the case dfinity should deploy ckBtc without KYT. Then the market can react to it.
This would cause a problem and the solution would be to take that same code and add KYT.
Working in a different work flow locks out options as a winner is already chosen without contest; and in this case the winners would be American regulators.
Because let’s be honest here, if the ckbtc is released with KYT there is no way to retract that. It becomes the new norm. However when problems arise the ckBtc can be deployed to add KYT on the jurisdictions that are worried about KYT.
That is part of the solution. Do not make it mandatory. A precaution might be acceptable. But the transaction should be given a chance to be finalized and it’s up to the developers to make that decision and the feature of KYT should not come as a default.
This is not accurate. It’s not about me at all. It’s more about the underlying concepts of the project.
To be fair if this is a priority of dfinity,… can they say what percentage of circulating BTC is tainted? What about non circulating BTC?
Is it 40%
Is it 10%
Is it 0.01%
Is it 0.0001%
I think that information is important in weighing on the priority being taken regarding KYT.
Reasonable question. I do not know myself.
So @JxBrian …How much BTC should be confiscated before reacting to KYT ??
and are you going to be participating with your BTC in that risk ?
1 Like
This is a reasonable position. ICP is probably not a good option
for everyone.
Made me laugh out loud.
But who will make the users who can’t cash out their BTC at CEX whole when the problem arise?
Who bailed out the banks?
But wasn’t a promise made not to bail out banks when they crushed in 2008? Why? Because banks take your money and profit from it, but when something wrong happens they get rewarded. As a result of owning accountability they had to change policies during not sure but I think it was Obamas era.
Simply put; When you get into business you have to weight the risk to reward approach. And the rule of investment is don’t put on the table what you can’t lose. So if someone loses money it’s a bad investment and they should have known better. That’s just how it is. It’s a hard reality to imagine but when you have been in the market for long and lost money due to market manipulation…experience teaches you how to weigh your risks. It’s a survival mode to know how brutal the market is. Back to your inquiry, this is not a problem that has been reported by ckBtc; but rather a problem that has been imagined. It’s not significant at all unless the data shows otherwise.
Also this creates room for insurance companies on the IC… which can drive innovation and create opportunities. Developers can insure themselves that when their accounts get tainted or get mixed up or are against the rules of a certain jurisdiction they can get full money back in this case ckbtc/BTC to refund to their customers. Because what will happen is questions would arise why wasn’t Chinese regulators chosen. How can they be included because I am sure they also have people on watch for tainted Bitcoin. Then it would be ohh this government does this, that one does that… blah blah blah. To avoid getting into that mess; just let the developers choose based on where they do business whether they would allow KYT or not.
You mean “giving American users of canisters…”, right? Why generalise? Why not be, to use a term you like, intellectually honest? Why not say “Bitcoin that US law considers tainted” rather than simply 'tainted Bitcoin"? Because no Bitcoin is tainted any more than the money we all have in banks and in our wallets is tainted because if we draw the line of transactions back enough there will be some illegality connected with it in a particular jurisdiction.
Uncritically adopting the absurd term ‘tainted Bitcoin’ is itself a sign of Dfinity’s warped perspective. Should principles not play a part somewhere?
2 Likes
Good question. I generalized because to be honest, my understanding is that the risk is not just on US citizens or US-based users. My understanding is that it can affect people in many countries, which would be surprising to many users. To be intellectually honest, that’s my understanding (even though I am Not an expert by any means)… but i could be wrong. This is one reason I don’t ascribe to the focus on US-based users, my understanding is that it could affect users in say, Mexico (to pick a random country).
Does that make sense?
I concede i could be wrong, but hope my intent is clearer.