Why are you disappointed if Keybase includes a wallet or a way to send people Lumens? Can you not just not use it?
It is the pure addition of risk to my operations and my clients' operations and offers nothing to me except a ding to my reputation, because I now look like an asshole because a security tool I recommended and spoke highly of is now going to be flogging funbux.
If they wanted to build some whateverthing that leverages Keybase for identity? Sure, go nuts, I think it's silly but it's not my time. But injecting it "into their apps"? No. These are tools for production, for me, and were developed with certain explicit and implicit promises. I see cryptocoin junk being shoved into production tools as a break of those promises.
I know a bit about how Stellar works, and I can't imagine any kind of software they could "inject" in their apps besides perhaps a way to post a Stellar address into the current merkle-tree they host and a way to fetch that through an API. How is that worse than having a Bitcoin address optionally includable in the same way?
The rest of their announcement, I legit don't care about. This is the deal-breaker here. You don't need a Big Announcement or to hire more people to add a Stellar address for verification. I know a bit about Stellar as well (granted, you probably know more) but this reads to me as a let's-be-a-wallet game.
And this is worse than having Bitcoin addresses: active functionality versus passive functionality. Difference of kind, yeah?
So... don't use it? I probably don't use 99% of the functionality in the software installed on my computer.
It sounds like you just have an axe to grind with anything relating to cryptocurrency.
AFAIK Keybase's clients are all open source. If this is a real problem someone (maybe you?) will fork them and remove the "cryptocoin crap".
What is it about this change that makes you assume you're going to have to deal with cryptomining et al?
This really is about Keybase bringing expertise with identity to the table and it makes a lot of sense for the two teams to work together. The currency side of things is still going to be handled by Stellar as far as I can tell.
Here's how normal people look at something like this. It's not "oh, but they're just facilitating," it's "why is there cryptocoin crap in this thing we use for work?". Then it's "Ed, why is this thing you recommended and spoke so highly about doing this? Are they cryptomining on our computers now?". Then, even after an explanation, they're probably still suspicious and probably right to still be suspicious because the cryptocurrency universe is, by normal and sane people, still viewed as a scammer's paradise. (To be clear: is this entirely justified? No, and I think there are decent people trying to make a go of it. But there's plenty of dirt going on and people should be suspicious until it's proven otherwise.)
I don't want this on my computers. But, more than that, I don't want my clients thinking that I am a party to shady business because of the tools I recommend that they use.
There are obviously annoying ways in which keybase could support cryptocurrency, but you are making a lot of assumptions about what Keybase is going to do that are not based on the blog post. For example, wallets do not mine coins and Stellar does not support mining.
Why don't you wait to see what comes out and submit a feature request if you don't like it, instead of flipping out about some hypothetical feature you won't like.
Where is this risk you speak of? Can you articulate it in any way? "Flogging"? Not anymore than they're flogging Hacker News or Facebook or Reddit by having an ID verification hook into them (complete with corporate logos!)
Hell, they already let you add Bitcoin (that thing that's only ever supposedly used for scams and drugs if the cynics are to be believed) and ZCash addresses for verification.
If the people you recommended Keybase to weren't turned off by having those front and center, it's likely they won't be turned off by this either. Take a deep breath.
It's also prone to reputational risks; basically everyone who hears about cryptocurrency almost immediately either loves it or hates it.
It seems less like you're being given a free piece of asbestos and more like you're being given tongs for holding some asbestos if you choose. Allowing one technology to work with another is different than marrying two technologies in an inseparable way.
Someone made the sandwich and let you use it, being clear along the way optional toppings may be added later.
If people want to mess with cryptobullshit, that's on them, but the more code that's active and doing stuff, the wider the attack surface is. I don't want it and don't need it.
* Keybase's plans will create an unofficial security bounty that is paid (1) out of users' wallets (2) to actors who haven't agreed to responsible disclosure practices.
* My personal choice not to use this (presumably) upcoming feature will protect my financial assets from exposure to (1), but it won't protect my data and identity from exposure to (2).
---
I myself am happy with Keybase, and looking forward to using it with crypto. I don't think it's irrational for someone with a different set of concerns to raise this, though.