> Only relevant for crime. Sending money anonymously is speech. Just as there's no reason the government needs access to my Signal text history, they don't nee

> Only relevant for crime. Sending money anonymously is speech. Just as there's no reason the government needs access to my Signal text history, they don't need access to my sex toy purchase history either. Are you in favor of strong encryption for messaging, but not payments? If so, I am curious to hear more of your reasoning on that. > Money is money, it can only change hands with a legal contract, and "smart contracts" are not legal contracts. Possession is 9/10 of the law, and low-value transactions are not worth litigating. Smart contracts let a piece of software be the judge and jury on a $5 transaction, and I think there's some value in that. It could also be useful for transacting with people who live in countries with broken legal systems.