> For a reason which, standing on a train station platform as I was, I failed to note in my prior comment: anonymous, untraceable money transfer not only makes

> For a reason which, standing on a train station platform as I was, I failed to note in my prior comment: anonymous, untraceable money transfer not only makes it easier to conceal crime, but acts as a uniquely powerful inducement to same. Making it possible to contract a murder, for example, in perfect forward secrecy, removes a significant deterrent against doing so at all. One may hasten to argue that such things are already possible today. They are. They are also quite difficult to achieve, which need not be the case with effectively anonymized cryptocurrencies. There's overwhelming evidence at this point that deterrents have little-to-no effect in crime prevention, so this argument falls flat before it can begin. > Further, that which facilitates the contravention of a nation's laws, in a way which renders detection and prosecution of the crime effectively impossible, is of its nature a direct attack on that nation's sovereignty. No government which wishes to maintain its power intact can long suffer such an infraction. This is a ridiculous assertion. Anonymous money doesn't defeat armies, or redraw borders, or overturn laws. Cash has existed for literally thousands of years and many sovereign nations have risen and fallen during those times.