>>A version of Taler that didn't allow auditability wouldn't fit the description on its website, correct. So the reasonable characterization of Taler's design

>>A version of Taler that didn't allow auditability wouldn't fit the description on its website, correct. So the reasonable characterization of Taler's design is that it is backdoored, or as per your euphemization, "allows auditability" by privileged state authorities. Taler cannot remove that feature and still possess its defining qualities. >>That has nothing to do with whether or not it's a "backdoor", It has to do with the point you made, which is that Taler could remove that feature. It cannot, and I explained why. >>I think you're being disingenuous in implying that a non-backdoored version of Bitcoin wouldn't allow double-spending. Bitcoin is not backdoored. You're completely misdefining the term 'backdoor' now. This is a very bad faith argument from you. >>Theoretically Monero might fit the bill, but given that neither Bitcoin nor Ethereum have adopted Monero's transaction model, it's pretty obvious that the maintainers/community don't view plugging that hole as a priority. 1. Not making plugging that hold a priority is absolutely not the same as providing state authorities with a backdoor as part of the design goals. 2. As a matter of fact, Bitcoin's LN has all transaction onion routed now. Ethereum has no need to take Monero's road to achieve privacy, as its Turing Complete program execution environment enables private transaction programs like AZTEC Network to run on top of it. >>What you're arguing to me is that Bitcoin is more private because it exposes my information to literally everyone, and not to a limited subset of people. I didn't say Bitcoin was more private. I said Bitcoin, Ethereum and other permissionless blockchains weren't definitionally backdoored.