"The government" may not care whether you're buying sex toys. But lots of people seem to care, and that gives that information some power to do harm. The Hamil

"The government" may not care whether you're buying sex toys. But lots of people seem to care, and that gives that information some power to do harm. The Hamilton Phase 1 summary doc has the following paragraph: > The main functional difference between our two architectures is that one materializes an ordered history for all transactions, while the other does not. ... In the other architecture, we can audit the set of unspent funds to make sure they were created correctly. Storing the history of transactions implies the central transaction processor can reconstruct the transaction graph, which, in combination with other data sources, could reveal sensitive user information. Who would have access to that reconstructed transaction graph/history, and under what contexts? How would that be controlled or enforced? NSA staff used their mass surveillance tools to spy on spouses and exes, after all. Even if you don't say anything in personal communication that the government should be concerned about, you can be legitimately creeped out by mass surveillance.