[bisq-network/growth] Add Strike App as a new payment method (#220)

[HEADY_WOOK]

Exactly my thoughts on a buyers end. However, one is still KYC'd through Strike in order to receive a payment. Any received amount through Strike will be on the records and may be considered income even if on the receivers end they only get fiat versus bitcoin, no? Further, if any interested entity, such as the State, wants to dig in, they will see a deposit on to Strike, a send, and a received amount in almost an equal amount to the original deposit. Even further, why would a buyer want to receive a payment in fiat, when they want bitcoin, because that is how it will show up in their Strike wallet? The buyer would then need to send that fiat  to a bitcoin address they control. Why not just send it to themselves? One argument I have heard from Jack himself is that sending to a non-KYC'd bitcoin address creates a plausible deniability that one did not actually send to themselves. This creates incentive for buyers to send to bitcoin addresses not associated with Strike which they control. Those are my thoughts on the buyers end.

On a sellers end, it only makes sense if they send from a non-KYC'd source aka not Strike or the like.


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/growth/issues/220#issuecomment-844751281
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20210519/b59747ca/attachment.htm>