I simply disagree on principle with adding one more thing to the ever increasing list of data trackable to an individual.
I'm sorry if this seems like I'm picking on you, but I just want to understand the viewpoint.
This seems to me to be a very opt-in program, so I don't quite understand the concern. If you don't want CtrlAlt knowing you've purchased a cap from someone, can't you just not tell them? There's no way they can force you... This is just a way to know that it's genuine. Or am I missing something here?
I have no problem having a rational discussion around my views, so there's nothing to be sorry about.
So the weaker version of this authentication method which would be privacy preserving would be to have authentication stickers that simply have a model ID on them, e.g. "ChemBroV2" or a model #. This would allow an anonymous cap to be verified with a few pics. I assume this was rejected because if you fake the sticker you can pass it off as genuine.
Now let's talk about serial numbered caps. Theoretically this solves the problem, except the serial numbers aren't secret, you have to take a picture and send it to someone so they know it's genuine. But here's the rub, if it's not a secret someone could simply dupe a serial number and sticker. So here's where the trade depot comes in, it's all authenticated and chain of custody is tracked! But then we're back to the previous problem for everyone else. So if you have a cap that has spent time off the grid it's suspicious.
And from the reaction to me for even thinking there's an issue, you can imagine what will be said "oh you traded off the depot, do you have something to hide???"
Again I don't think this is ill intentioned I just do not like the direction.
Personally I think the first is acceptable, but find the second not. We all get choices, happens to be mine.