On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 10:15:30PM +0200, Daniel Lipshitz wrote:
> We have standard commercial information about the payment processors, non
> custodial liquidity providers and merchants which become our clients - we
> do not have any kyc/aml information or telephone number on who is sending
> our clients the bitcoin for deposit. For us these are just bitcoin Trx
> which our clients choose to benefit from 0-conf deposit recognition. Our
> service is provided via API with the only information our clients share
> with us, regarding a specific bitcoin transaction, being public bitcoin
> information like trx hash and output address.
You know who your clients are, and thus every request for information on a
transaction is reasonably likely to be a deposit associated with the client who
requested it. Learning what addresses are associated with what entity is a
significant benefit to Chainalysis operations, and there's every reason to
expect that the data you learn will either be sold or leaked to Chainalysis
companies.
I would estimate based on general discussions with clients and open research more than 90% of our clients use different AML trx analysis service providers for trx deposited on their platforms - completely irrelevant to us or 0-conf. So if these clients were to stop recognising 0-conf this would have no impact on these AML service providers access to the data. We service payment processors and liquidity providers and have little or no insight into which wallets or merchants our clients service.
Further to this many of the cluster addresses of our clients and just like other service providers in the bitcoin space are publicly known - just as Max had no issue sharing the cluster of his deposit address in his email which I posted to the list.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org