Who, in this forum, has not been KYC’d in any way by anything related to ZF and/or ECC?
I am curious to see whether that so-called “Zcash community” I keep reading about in here, actually has cypherpunk people.
What?
Are you seriously implying that the developers and teams at ECC and ZF (or those who have worked with them ) are somehow “not cypherpunk” because their real world identity are known by ECC/ZF?
They are the ones literally working on and publishing the open source code that makes Zcash and zk-snarks technology available for anyone in the world to use for free.
If that isn’t Cypherpunk I don’t know what is.
10 Likes
Satoshi Nakamoto.
The person or people who designed the greatest public financial tracking system humanity has ever seen - a system with zero respect for the privacy of the people who use it?
You implying that Satoshi did that on purpose is frankly pathetic. It is known that Satoshi wanted to make it private, he just didn’t know how. Even Zooko has reminded everyone of that on a regular basis.
Now, you are confusing the output of a person, with the person themselves. I am talking about the latter.
The work of Satoshi, just like the work of the Zcash cryptographers is outstanding. I have no doubt they are fantastic people as well.
But cypherpunk is a way of life. A way that doesn’t KYC.
Needless to say, to the surprise of no-one, I am gathering information to figure out how deep is the illegitimacy of the current dev fund control. I feel confident it is neither backed by a lot of token holders, nor proper cypherpunks. As far as I can tell, it’s the people getting paid by it, all of them KYC’d, that are controlling it. If correct, that “community” is a far cry from the cypherpunk ethos.
Ok. Have fun with that. Also, this thread is asking people to dox themselves which is against forum policy.
- Wow, what a strong rebuttal of my points.
- I am specifically asking to discuss with people that have not doxed themselves.
You are specifically asking people who wish to remain private, to reveal themselves.
Is it forbidden to make suggestions? I do not dox them in any way. Aren’t they free to come forward? Are you attempting to control the narrative maybe?
Just in case somehow there would be an ounce of doubt, evidently, I am specifically asking people who wish to remain private, to NOT reveal their identity, in any way.
I am @outgoing.doze and I have never KYC’d anywhere close to Zcash. There, hopefully I did not dox myself too much for @ryan.taylor.
I simply want to talk governance with people that not only are legitimate to control the dev fund (token holders), but also those that I find more credible (non KYC’d) to talk about what they believe should be prioritized going forward.
With everybody in governance being KYC’d, I think there is a potential this “community” is completely oblivious to how ridiculous this looks from the outside, and affects the project credibility.
2 Likes
Just trying to warn you that other threads in this forum based on a similar premise have been closed by mods. I am not a mod.
Now that I have clarified under extremely clear terms that no doxing was involved, I feel confident I have no broken the CoC, regardless of what may have happened in the past.
You, however, may want to review it:
- “We strive to keep this forum organized we want everyone to be respectful of others discussions and time. Please do not:”
- “* Go Off-Topic: Derailing topics to a different subject other than the intent of the threads original post (OP).”
I’d appreciate if you could stop, thank you.
1 Like
i could have been not _ _ _d.
but then got too involved in the community that to do more there was a choice to do it or not get as involved 
there are still people that are anon and do contribute in many ways and i love that its possible.
3 Likes
Let me understand… you want a list of nyms that haven’t been KYC’d?
On the face of it this seems like a disingenuous request designed to outrage folks, and distract them more productive uses of their time.
1 Like
Framing the discussion around who has or hasn’t undergone KYC with ECC or ZF doesn’t meaningfully define who belongs to the Zcash community or who embodies cypherpunk principles. Community involvement and cypherpunk ethos extend beyond simply having or avoiding KYC. I believe it’s more productive to focus on actions contributions, and principles rather than setting arbitrary gatekeeping criteria.
5 Likes
It’s designed to achieve the above, because as of today token holders have 0 control over the dev fund, additionally and just as importantly, I am not sure someone like Satoshi would be able to truly participate to the steering of the project today, and I truly believe this is a problem.
I believe this is a problem because, delegation has been discussed in few occasions for token holders governance, and I would like to eventually delegate to someone actively participating to the governance of the project, one that is specifically not KYC’d. Hopefully it is a fair criteria.
Either way, that’ll be message #17 and it’d be a great time to stop derailing the original post. In most likelihood, this will be the last message and this thread will just disappear in no time.
Maybe do a little research.
Have you checked out @hanh 's coin-based voting work?
1 Like
I really doubt that any cypherpunk would advocate for a plutocracy.
Also, most well-known “cypherpunks” are not even anonymous. Satoshi is basically the only one.
2 Likes
This is a ‘No true Scottsman’ fallacy thread. If the argument is that one cypherpunk in a project is enough to make it fit your criteria of purity the number of “kyc’d” members should be irrelevant. Building privacy preserving technology and encouraging others to use it is cypherpunk af, even if it is pumped by banks and wef. The code is open and auditable.
5 Likes
I’d say that building privacy preserving technology that gets adopted by banks and the WEF is cypherpunk AF! 