@waxwing I always enjoy your insight into these issues.
You mentioned seeing Mario G. speak recently in another toot, I'm reminded of something he said when I saw him present not too long ago, (to paraphrase): "many people fear and want to restrict 'anonymization', so we often say 'fungibility' instead".
Of course the two are not the same, but they are heavily related. As @FreePietje mentioned, the "I have nothing to hide" crowd do more damage than they may ever realize in this regard.
If Bitcoin can't be used for what is commonly described as "money laundering" (set aside the philosophical debate about that term; just think of it as 'not state sanctioned value transfer' for these purposes), then it is worthless.
Now, maybe it's only *contingently* incapable of performing this function, because it's too new/small or whatever; but obviously censorship-resistant value transfer is the point.
Failure to perform that function is not a badge of honor.
I completely agree and I suspect other people who could say that think so too.
So it's not meant as an admission of failure of an essential function of bitcoin/money, but making fun of someone's claimed moral high ground.
(I wanted to rephrase this toot, but as you already responded, I'll leave this one as is)
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!