> It might be that you are okay with that being violated, but it does not mean that it stops being a right But it's not a right. If something is not a right in

> It might be that you are okay with that being violated, but it does not mean that it stops being a right But it's not a right. If something is not a right in any jurisdiction on earth, the idea that you have this right is a philosophical exercise, not something based on any sort of reality. You can’t really even claim it’s being violated if this absolute right to financial privacy is not enumerated anywhere and never has been. > it does not mean that people should accept losing it away. They've never had such a right to lose. > If you believe that, feel free to stop using WhatsApp or whatever e2e encrypted system you are using right now. Speech and money are not equivalent. > Does that mean that law-abiding citizens should lose their rights over it? Rights they don't have? > Honestly, citizens like you that want to normalize State Surveillance concern me more than any "darknet hacker" ever will. Didn't you learn anything with the Patriot Act? Citizens like me who think that, with appropriate warrants and appropriate circumstances, the state ought to be able to access financial information relating to serious crimes? Citizens like ... basically everyone? > Using tornado cash (by itself) is not a crime. Except it pretty much is now, as a sanctioned service. So there's that. > Making payments online without being worried that people can access your whole transaction history is crucial for it to be a viable alternative. The fact that your blockchain solution can either give total transparency to everyone, or absolute, mathematical privacy that can't be broken even under warrant, is a problem for your blockchain system not the rest of us and not the legal system. > Please stop with this absurd FUD and stop associating privacy with "something only for the interest of malicious actors". How about you please stop this FUD? How about you stop throwing around accusations about normalising state surveillance at people who don't agree that absolute, unbreakable financial privacy under all circumstances is a good plan? How about you engage with arguments about what your needs are and why you consider them reasonable, with a backdrop of acknowledging the harm done, instead of engaging in the usual, boring, facile, black-and-white thinking that if I don't agree that a service that North Korea can use to hide a billion dollars is a good thing, I must be for total state surveillance? How about some fucking subtelty of thought?