No such thing as “blacklisted sats.”
Why? Because you can always partake in a new on-chain txn, a collaborative txn, or a txn over the LN to change your UTXO sets.
The sats are what remain constant. All sats have equal value. If there are ever some sats that are perceived to have less value than others, that delta will be quickly arbitraged away.
If all sats have equal value, would you willingly switch your current onchain sats for sats obtained through mixers, and then try to deposit the new sats at a reputable centralized exchange?
If they had the same value - if they were truly fungible - then it wouldn't matter, and indeed, nobody would even be able to tell that this operation had been performed.
All sats *should* have equal value, but because Bitcoin privacy is dodgy at best (and yes, I am aware of all the workarounds and employ them myself), they don't - in every situation, but at present only in certain ways will that become a problem (most notably with CEX, which are bound to obey the law, which is employed to maintain pervasive financial surveillance of everyone, with no regard for the presumption of innocence).
Simply put, the pseudonymous nature of Bitcoin is not enough to enable fungibility. All sats have a history, if you try to erase their history, that becomes their new history.
Now if you ask me if that should matter - no, it shouldn't (but makes for a clumsy solution for financial privacy). But it does, and it is a weak point, and being a weak point it is being leveraged by entities hostile to freedom and self-sovereignty, and it will probably get worse before it gets better.
Mixing sats doesn’t change the value of the sats. It changes the privacy of the Bitcoiner himself.
The first step in understanding the Austrian concept is to realize that value is entirely subjective, rather than something objective. Value, therefore, is something that each individual person weighs on a purely private, not a public, set of scales.
(from https://mises.org/library/introduction-value-theory)
Not sure if you agree with this view? Probably not? Bitcoiners generally do. I do as well.
Other people value tainted sats differently. If they all had the same value, I couldn't write a program to flag certain utxos. And yet this is trivial to do. Because they are not fungible, and thus are valued differently.
Sats have no intrinsic value. No other things does, at least if you buy (heh) Austrian Economics.
This is why certain coins are set to be delisted (by government coercion in the background, no doubt) - since each unit is really like every other unit due to inbuilt cryptography, the government's solution is to foolishly try to ban the tool.
With Bitcoin, no need - it's transparent (thus not fungible). They insist in attempting to outlaw mixing techniques (you can still do them, but good luck using sats from such txs in the aboveground economy, if they push this nonsense far enough.
True. You’re free to subjectively value one Apple Share more than all the other Apple Shares, no matter how idiotic that may be.
