>>(Most) cryptocurrencies don't have privacy (quite the opposite). The reason why the government couldn't stop cryptocurrency transactions is that they were dec

>>(Most) cryptocurrencies don't have privacy (quite the opposite). The reason why the government couldn't stop cryptocurrency transactions is that they were decentralised. They can be used in ways that give the user privacy. They're pseudonymous. But yes, a big part of why they can't be stopped is that they're decentralized. But that decentralization only works if users have some degree of privacy. If governments knew every participant's address, that decentralization would effectively vanish. >>Yes, they may be able to try to punish the mint for permitting such transactions, but this would be the same as punishing Coinbase for allowing people to send those transactions as well. Coinbase would not allow transactions to Wikileaks if the financial blockade were reimposed on it. GNU Taler states that it is designed to prevent illegal use, and if it is accurate in its claim, then it will prevent Wikileaks from using it during a financial blockade. A technology's susceptibility to government control doesn't discriminate based on the moral justification for the government wanting to exert that control. That's why one has to acknowledge that there's a trade off to be made, and decide which trade off is more conducive to a functional society. I personally think empowering individuals rather the surveillance state is the better trade-off. >>This does not apply to GNU Taler, because no encryption or privacy guarantee is being bypassed. The Clipper chip did not give any privacy guarantee against government monitoring, yet this channel for monitoring was commonly called a backdoor.