BITMAIN Real Name Authentication


It’s been two weeks now.

Any update from the Foundation?


Is it possible to sidestep the KYC by purchasing through intermediaries, e.g., Canada or other resellers?

Maybe this isn’t such a big deal, more of a lost-trust thing.


@root Yes, there are re-sellers in Canada that I have dealt with personally. This news was definitely blown out of proportion.


I actually do think KYC is a big deal. Not for us in the US, but for others residing under restrictive governments. If distributor companies will ship to those areas in plain packaging, maybe it’s something they can get around. It will be interesting to see how this ends up. Maybe in a year or two hardware will be more accessible and more widely distributed than it is right now. Things change so quickly in this space.


I sat down with Jihan yesterday. We were both at a small conference in Singapore. I also met with the CEO of PoEx / Canaan. While he competes with Jihan, he confirmed what Jihan told me.

It’s a banking requirement necessary for a potential IPO. An 3rd party audit is required (by PWC, etc) to verify sales numbers. It’s common practice for company to fudge numbers by selling a large volume of product to a 3rd party, or group of them, that are essentially owned by the seller. It’s selling to yourself to make your numbers look better to investors. Steve (Canaan) has to go through a similar process.

Someone should build an audit solution that uses zkps!

Please may we have a formal response to the KYC requirement for ASIC producers


Thanks for the detail. I have a few questions.

So any ASIC mining producer that gets large enough - will require KYC? be it Intel or Samsung or Bitfury?

This is even more worrying than just Bitmain requiring KYC.

Can you give any information about how this issue is being discussed internally? Is it seen as a problem that needs to be solved? What was Jihans opinion on the future for his company to sell privacy coin hardware? They must see it as a risk that zec will fork and then be forced to continue to fork to keep kyc off the network. (if this is the way zcash co is going to go)

I know it is a tired statement but all hardware except ASIC’s are immune to this. So it is two problems in one. I can see why people would not care so much about bitcoin mining hardware, but for a privacy coin, you now have your two kyc failure points, one in (buying on an exchange/mining) one out (exchanging for alternative crypto or fiat). where is the privacy?



I think any hardware manufacturer looking to do an IPO, that hasn’t already, needs to go through this process. If Innosilicon and others are not looking for public investment, then they won’t need KYC. Intel and others that are already public wouldn’t need KYC (even though they have your information anyway).

My gut reflex was that this was somehow a local government crackdown on Bitmain’s customers, in an attempt to decrease foreign capital outflows. It seems that my assumption was wrong and it’s just PWC trying to verify that Bitmain’s sales numbers are legitimate. Either way, I’m against KYC. In the US, KYC is to prevent money laundering (generally good intentioned) but in a dictatorship/oligarch it’s used to oppress and restrict freedom. Preventing oppression is more important than making US financial investigators jobs easier.


Yes, verifying sales numbers and other business details are all part of the due diligence process conducted by the underwriters of an IPO, but…

…can anyone think of another IPO where the business suddenly required retail customers to submit a copy of their passport?!


I’am no way defending bitmain anymore and just in generally?

I think the problem here is that they directly sale to customers and not just to retailers. I mean i doubt anybody bought ever a an intel chip directly at Intel, a SDD direclty at Samsung and so on …
Pretty sure IF they would sale only to retailers/shops and customers have to buy there this KYC procedure wouldn’t be necessary at all, but after Bitmain sales directly to the end customer it’s a different story.

It could be even related that a lot of purchases are handled with crypto payments making it a bit harder for an audit to verify IF these purchases are real or faked, makes in my opinion as well some sense.

Than again everybody that goes true the custom office the governements anyway have full info what from who for how much and when you got/paid.

Other than that, as many times said by me allready, just don’t buy anymore any hardware but support a project by directly buying or staking coins, easy as that.


There are loads of IPOs from B2C businesses - think of most SAAS companies or any social media company. As a most recent example, Spotify didn’t ask for my passport :smiley:



I know you are just trying to see some good in a bad situation.

I see where you are coming from, and I like your optimism. however those devices are multiuse. nVidia also direct sell to consumers, as do companies like Palit.

With a single use device like a crypto mining asic the device can be tracked from start to finish. like a car, or a gun. The KYC is just passed on to the next layer down. There is an entire subset of fips standards that allow your local shop to accept credit payments without having to do the kyc themselves. but make no mistake it is done.

It is not a problem if it makes sense or not, the issue is their is now no longer any hope of privacy in a coin that’s whole purpose was to ensure privacy.

Yes you have said this many times. you have yet to explain:
1 - how I am meant to get ZEC without KYC
2 - IF ZEC was PoS what is to stop the founders using their founders reward to stake? this is a massive trust issue. zcash co would control over 33% of the total supply. (very rough back of the envelope calculations)

So how can I keep my privacy (like I can with cash) AND support ZEC?


I’am not sure about this, but my personal opinion is more that the transactions and holders of the Wallet should be given privacy, not the way how to initially get them. But than again, that’s just my view as someone having no problems with KYC, paying taxes and so on…

Is there any Zcash paper related that getting the initial ZEC should be covered by full privacy without any tracks anywhere? Serious question by the way…


This is a paradox. To get them, somehow they must be transacted. Once they have been transferred I am now a holder.

Yes, it is covered by the initial supply thingy. sure it doesn’t say it must work like that, just that it can work like that, and they are working towards that. eventually their will be no more t addresses so then it will always be like that.

I think you a strawmanning my argument a bit with the “no tracks anywhere” - it has the caveat that it is possible to do what you stated, not that it is like that by default. which is why sapling is so important.
edit to add


I’am not trying to strawmanning your arguments, but more finding out if my view on a privacy coin is correct or lacking basic or important details, hence why i added “i’am not sure” and asked for a link referring to exactly this issue.

About your argument:

1 - how I am meant to get ZEC without KYC
So how can I keep my privacy (like I can with cash) AND support ZEC?

I doubt you have any privacy with cash if we talk about amounts higher than for example 5.000 USD as you must get these as well from anywhere if we talk about legal obtaining. Wherever you get these legally there are traces to your identity, at least in Europe.

P.S.: I’am writting/discussing this beside the Bitmain issue as the Bitmain issue isn’t of any interest for me anymore as i won’t by anymore of this junk. However, the question if obtaining ZEC initially should/could be covered by full privacy is very interesting in my opinion. I even would like to hear someone from the foundation and Zcash co about their views on this.


Ah, my mistake. I apologise. If you read the two links I edited into my last post you should get the answers you are looking for :slight_smile:

Right, but cash never claimed that type of privacy, it is something that has evolved. ZEC on the other hand does say that type of privacy is possible.

Note: Privacy is not anonymity, whilst zcash can be used in an anonymous manner it needs more work for it to be a thing and im not 100% sure that is their goal or even a desirable goal. Privacy though…

Yes, @joshs’s post made it clear this is not a bitmain issue, but an asic issue, and KYC issue. single use hardware is so much easier to control than multipurpose hardware.

check the links, I think they will help a lot.


FWIW, my personal opinion (not of the Foundation officially) mirrors yours, @daira’s, and others in this thread—the KYC is an absurd requirement, and sets a dangerous precedent.

@vgm’s suggestion is a good one; if you want to buy a Bitmain miner, go through a reseller without a crazy KYC requirement. Or vote with your dollars and buy a competitor.

Please may we have a formal response to the KYC requirement for ASIC producers

Department : Engineering

Job Description

  • Support in regard to the implementation of KYC/AML policies, AML-monitoring and sanction screening