Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070

From: Justin Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:07:06 -0700

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, s7r via bitcoin-dev <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>
>
> Any kind of built-in AML/KYC tools in Bitcoin is bad, and might draw
> expectations from _all_ users from authorities. Companies or individuals
> who want and/or need AML/KYC can find ways and do it at their side
> isolated from the entire network, and the solutions shouldn't come from
> upstream. AML/KYC/<insert other regulation here> differ from country to
> country and will be hard to implement in a global consensus network even
> if it would be worth it.
>
>
This was precisely our thinking as well.

This is actually exactly why BIP 75 was designed the way that it was.  Any
(voluntary) identity exchange is done at the application level, on an
encrypted https (or other) connection between the sender and receiver.
Identity data is not passed through or stored on the blockchain, and there
is actually no mark left on the blockchain that identity was even exchanged
on that transaction.

The only people who know identity info was exchanged, or what the identity
was is the counterparties in the transaction, and depending on
implementation, their service provider.  (At a high level, many software
based wallet providers wouldn’t have any visibility into identity info,
where many hosted services would, for example)

We did this to protect user privacy as well as fungibility.

We are allowing the people who want or need to exchange identtity info
(either self signed or 3rd party validated) the option to exchange it, in a
standards based way, directly between peers, without touching the
blockchain or network itself.

Is this more clear?

-- 

Justin W. Newton
Founder/CEO
Netki, Inc.

[email-masked]
+1.818.261.4248