Would it be? I don’t think they are assuming the destination is always you. Just because the recipient isn’t always you doesn’t mean the KYC is broken. At least if “breaking the KYC” means zeroing out the useful data they are getting about you.
They may be able to figure out things about you based on where it’s going, the amount, the timing, the frequency, etc if they have figured out something about the destination. You may be investigated because of your military relationship with that person.
It’s the same reason chainanalysis thinks they have a good product even though one hop technically breaks their KYC too: because one hop is more than zero data, and put a few of those together (or many) and you start to have significant insight into what is happening (or at least so they will claim)
They are assuming it’s my btc because there’s no other data to use. If I send $10 to a random lightning address from Strike how would they know who it’s going to? In their eyes that $10 is my Bitcoin that came out of my bank.
It’s $10 that went from your account to a specific place. And depending on what they know about that place that can give trackers information about you that you don’t want them to have - including information that is untrue or you didn’t know but may be assumed to know (or at least not assumed to not know)
“Receiver
Senders may jeopardize their privacy when sending payments if they’re not careful, but receivers are even more exposed. It all begins with the invoice, which has the receiver’s public key embedded in it. Everyone with access to an invoice can easily discover the associated node.” - and keep in mind that Strike has the invoice you used to send the money
https://voltage.cloud/blog/lightning-network-faq/lightning-network-privacy-explainer/
Ahhh gotcha. Ok that makes more sense
Oddbean new post about login | logout