I've always said privacy and security are two different practices. Just as one hand washes the other, both wash the face. To address your examples, with which practice applies most:

-$5 wrench attacks - security

-Public knowledge of your spending habits - privacy

-Price discrimination - privacy

-Avoid targeted advertising and manipulation - privacy

-Business competitors seeing your financials and who you interact with - privacy and security

On a pure technical level, without human intervention such as censorship and surveillance tech built on top of the monetary system, tainted bitcoin would technically still work. If humans create an environment, such as a parallel economy, where censorship doesn't exist, it is equivalent to spending cash that may have been used in an illegal act. You personally did not commit the crime, and if your environment is one of censorship resistance, you are only guilty when proven guilty.

If you are in an environment, where surveillance exists, you are correct that every person that used that cash will be targeted.

In today's environment, this is such a specific situation, that it is highly unlikely to happen to the common person.

We are a niche, within another niche, within another niche: cryptocurency > bitcoin/monero > privacy tools. So these conversations are great for thought experiments, content generation, and to develop ideas and make the tech better. Only time will tell if these tools are even going to be truly necessary.

nostr:npub1tr4dstaptd2sp98h7hlysp8qle6mw7wmauhfkgz3rmxdd8ndprusnw2y5g this is enough content for an Opt Out Podcast, to include nostr:npub1ppjkfvk0ek3g584gp7qp9d3znwdznadchet7q2aez9r27620n9zs45xvx2 and nostr:npub14a6q6xvt4wuv0wpdpfr336e4fweldtu6np3ehpw55h83xuw2h2zsgyz6rn

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Agree, there is a lot of overlap.

If you had privacy the $5 wrench attack wouldn't be likely or even possible in the first place (if they didn't know how much you owned, how much was spent/received, and that you even spent/received crypto to begin with)

The consequences of lack-of-fungibility are separate from the state. Even if there is some future where the state no longer exists, miners can still censor individual transactions for economic or ideological reasons. Look at Luke Dash Jr attempts (failed) being made with ordinal and BIP47 filters. If his mining pool were larger, or larger pools agreed with them, it would be successful. That has nothing to do with the state.

People judge and act on their beliefs. That will continue to exist with or without a state.

Surveillance will still be possible without a state.

Let's make it very difficult/impossible for that to be done with money.

There are also economic reasons why even without a state fungibility is desirable. Making every coin uniform and identical to any other removes friction (no unique histories and taint to consider)

Thanks for the conversation