This is an unreasonable contortion of the OP’s comment. Conflating cryptocurrency (an industry rife with scams) to cryptography (a branch of discrete mathematics) belies precisely the reason people don’t take cryptocurrency boosters seriously.
If you are against anonymous cryptocurrency transactions, should you not also be against all end-to-end encryption? After all, it could conceal cryptocurrency transactions!
Or any of an endlessly growing amount of potentially dangerous information or assets, transferred peer to peer.
If you read what I wrote carefully, I clarify the issue so the substance can be discussed, rather than gotcha questions about equivocating words like “crypto”, as what woodruffw has done.
The issue is broken down into two things: 1) control over one’s own speech/identity/brand/etc so no one can take it from you, and 2) anonymity and freedom from consequences for illegal speech or transactions (according to the local lass in different countries).
I think nearly everyone is in favor of #1. The question is about #2. It is an interesting one - and notice that I myself do not advocate a position in my comment, just lay out the two issues and ask which direction you would be more comfortable for society to go in.
This conflation of free expression and hiding your finances would get you laughed out of any courtroom in America. I strongly support E2EE encryption and do work that directly supports a number of E2EE efforts; the idea that this requires me to support unfettered money laundering is facile.
And no, there is no such conflation on my part. Once again: cryptocurrency is, by and large a collection of scam artists and shysters. Cryptography is a branch of discrete mathematics.
One nice thing with regards to #2 is that targeted surveillance can still exist even with cryptocurrency, E2EE, etc. If someone who works in an average 9to5 job suddenly owns a Porsche, that could be suspicious to warrant an investigation. Just because the data isn't available via OSINT or via coercion of platform/data owner, doesn't mean it cannot be obtained. It just costs more resources, and that's a tricky sunk cost for e.g. law enforcement. That's why they don't like either; it increases their workload which costs society money. Its not they cannot work around it; they can. Just not via previously (ab)used mass surveillance tactics. Like I said, I believe that's a nice thing, but it has cons (such as indeed the increased cost/workload).
Now, I believe we need to discuss all these pros and cons with an open mind, but unfortunately there are too many personal interests involved which skew a proper discussion. For example, cryptocurrency adapts have an interest in their asset remaining relevant.
Only if you hold the belief that money is a form of free speech. Otherwise, money is just valuable property that you have to account for on your yearly/monthly tax statement to the government.
