Okay, I think I understand. What you're saying is that the rate of criminal activity related to this payment medium is sufficiently high that the cost of total

Okay, I think I understand. What you're saying is that the rate of criminal activity related to this payment medium is sufficiently high that the cost of total surveillance of all financial transactions is justified. Where I take issue with this is where you call for "the same standard as everything else". The surveillance of cryptocurrency right now is actually very pervasive. I've seen the theft of millions of dollars in fraudulent wire transfers (I mean 1M+ per incident) in the traditional banking system over and over and over again, no cryptocurrency involved whatsoever. And contrary to what people often say, it's not actually an option for victims to reverse such transactions. Thus, I personally doubt this surveillance is effective in preventing theft. We are better off spending the resources to harden against these attacks in the first place. I don't think it's worth it overall to engage in the pervasive surveillance of cryptocurrency or traditional bank transactions, unless the goal is something else, such as collecting more taxes or preventing flight of capital, which is what I believe the real fear about cryptocurrency is. And notwithstanding the above, I have to ask, is it really a good idea to presume guilt and require permission for people to transact with each other in a general sense? And if you do believe this is for the greater good, why not expand the scope of it? Why not put cameras in all of our homes? We have the technology to implement this now, so why not?