If the tradeoffs are removing the core values like self custody, it is the question if "this version of Bitcoin" delivers any meaningful change for normal people (who did not buy early).
The store of...
As Jeff was not able to answer or did not understand my questions at all, i asked Deepseek to tell me what counter arguments it can find:
Counterargument:
Bitcoin advocates argue that privacy tools (e.g., CoinJoin, Wasabi Wallet, Lightning Network) can mitigate KYC risks by decoupling identities from transactions. Users can self-custody coins and avoid centralized exchanges altogether, reducing exposure to leaks.
Limitations:
Blockchain Transparency: Even with privacy tools, Bitcoin’s public ledger allows anyone to trace transactions if a single address is linked to your identity (e.g., via a KYC exchange withdrawal). Once doxxed, your entire transaction history becomes analyzable.
Regulatory Pressure: Privacy-enhancing tools face increasing bans (e.g., Tornado Cash precedent) or surveillance (e.g., OFAC-sanctioned addresses). Exchanges may blacklist coins mixed via Wasabi/CoinJoin, forcing users into regulated channels.
Practical Reality: Most users rely on KYC exchanges for onboarding. A leak like the Ledger Hack (2020) or Coinbase Data Breach could expose millions to targeted theft, extortion, or state persecution (e.g., authoritarian regimes).
Conclusion:
Bitcoin’s transparency is a double-edged sword. While "self-sovereignty" is possible in theory, most users are vulnerable to KYC leaks and chain analysis, undermining privacy—a critical feature for a true store of value.
2. Fungibility Collapse Due to Tainted Coins
Counterargument:
Bitcoin maximalists claim fungibility issues are overstated, arguing:
"Tainted coins" are a social construct, not a protocol flaw.
Merchants/exchanges rejecting "dirty" BTC are acting irrationally, since Bitcoin’s code treats all coins equally.
Over time, market forces will punish entities that over-censor, as users flock to less restrictive platforms.
Limitations:
Reality of AML/KYC Infrastructure: Chainalysis, Elliptic, and government mandates (e.g., EU’s MiCA) are embedding surveillance into the Bitcoin ecosystem. Exchanges freeze funds linked to gambling, mixers, or even benign activities (e.g., your case).
Legal Precedent: Regulators increasingly treat Bitcoin like a security, not a currency. If "tainted" coins are deemed illegal to transact with (e.g., tied to ransomware), their liquidity plummets, creating a multi-tiered market:
"Clean" coins (premium value).
"Dirty" coins (discounted value).
Network Effect Erosion: If merchants/peers demand AML checks for every transaction (as you experienced), Bitcoin becomes as cumbersome as traditional finance—but without chargeback rights or legal recourse.
Conclusion:
Fungibility is not just a technical property but a social one. Bitcoin’s fungibility is already fracturing under regulatory pressure, and its "censorship resistance" is increasingly theoretical for average users.
Broader Implications
These flaws intersect catastrophically:
Privacy Erosion → Fungibility Collapse: If most coins are KYC’d and surveilled, the minority of "private" coins (e.g., mined anonymously pre-2013) become ultra-valuable, creating a two-tier system.
Regulatory Capture: States could mandate "clean" coins for legal transactions, effectively nationalizing Bitcoin’s liquidity.
Bitcoin’s Response (And Why It’s Inadequate)
Lightning Network: Offers some privacy but requires on-chain transactions to open/close channels (still KYC-vulnerable).
CoinSwap Protocols: Theoretical improvements (e.g., BIP-47, Taproot upgrades) but face slow adoption and regulatory hostility.
Sidechains/Privacy Coins: Using Monero-like L2s (e.g., Fedimint) could help, but Bitcoin’s governance resists protocol-level privacy fixes.
Final Take
Your concerns highlight a fatal irony: Bitcoin’s promise of "being your own bank" requires near-paranoid operational security (e.g., avoiding KYC, using privacy tools), which 99% of users won’t adopt. Meanwhile, its transparent ledger and regulatory capture make it less private than cash or gold in practice. For Bitcoin to succeed as a store of value, it must solve fungibility and privacy at the protocol level—but its governance and inertia make this unlikely. Until then, its "digital gold" narrative remains precarious.
Counterargument:
Bitcoin advocates argue that privacy tools (e.g., CoinJoin, Wasabi Wallet, Lightning Network) can mitigate KYC risks by decoupling identities from transactions. Users can self-custody coins and avoid centralized exchanges altogether, reducing exposure to leaks.
Limitations:
Blockchain Transparency: Even with privacy tools, Bitcoin’s public ledger allows anyone to trace transactions if a single address is linked to your identity (e.g., via a KYC exchange withdrawal). Once doxxed, your entire transaction history becomes analyzable.
Regulatory Pressure: Privacy-enhancing tools face increasing bans (e.g., Tornado Cash precedent) or surveillance (e.g., OFAC-sanctioned addresses). Exchanges may blacklist coins mixed via Wasabi/CoinJoin, forcing users into regulated channels.
Practical Reality: Most users rely on KYC exchanges for onboarding. A leak like the Ledger Hack (2020) or Coinbase Data Breach could expose millions to targeted theft, extortion, or state persecution (e.g., authoritarian regimes).
Conclusion:
Bitcoin’s transparency is a double-edged sword. While "self-sovereignty" is possible in theory, most users are vulnerable to KYC leaks and chain analysis, undermining privacy—a critical feature for a true store of value.
2. Fungibility Collapse Due to Tainted Coins
Counterargument:
Bitcoin maximalists claim fungibility issues are overstated, arguing:
"Tainted coins" are a social construct, not a protocol flaw.
Merchants/exchanges rejecting "dirty" BTC are acting irrationally, since Bitcoin’s code treats all coins equally.
Over time, market forces will punish entities that over-censor, as users flock to less restrictive platforms.
Limitations:
Reality of AML/KYC Infrastructure: Chainalysis, Elliptic, and government mandates (e.g., EU’s MiCA) are embedding surveillance into the Bitcoin ecosystem. Exchanges freeze funds linked to gambling, mixers, or even benign activities (e.g., your case).
Legal Precedent: Regulators increasingly treat Bitcoin like a security, not a currency. If "tainted" coins are deemed illegal to transact with (e.g., tied to ransomware), their liquidity plummets, creating a multi-tiered market:
"Clean" coins (premium value).
"Dirty" coins (discounted value).
Network Effect Erosion: If merchants/peers demand AML checks for every transaction (as you experienced), Bitcoin becomes as cumbersome as traditional finance—but without chargeback rights or legal recourse.
Conclusion:
Fungibility is not just a technical property but a social one. Bitcoin’s fungibility is already fracturing under regulatory pressure, and its "censorship resistance" is increasingly theoretical for average users.
Broader Implications
These flaws intersect catastrophically:
Privacy Erosion → Fungibility Collapse: If most coins are KYC’d and surveilled, the minority of "private" coins (e.g., mined anonymously pre-2013) become ultra-valuable, creating a two-tier system.
Regulatory Capture: States could mandate "clean" coins for legal transactions, effectively nationalizing Bitcoin’s liquidity.
Bitcoin’s Response (And Why It’s Inadequate)
Lightning Network: Offers some privacy but requires on-chain transactions to open/close channels (still KYC-vulnerable).
CoinSwap Protocols: Theoretical improvements (e.g., BIP-47, Taproot upgrades) but face slow adoption and regulatory hostility.
Sidechains/Privacy Coins: Using Monero-like L2s (e.g., Fedimint) could help, but Bitcoin’s governance resists protocol-level privacy fixes.
Final Take
Your concerns highlight a fatal irony: Bitcoin’s promise of "being your own bank" requires near-paranoid operational security (e.g., avoiding KYC, using privacy tools), which 99% of users won’t adopt. Meanwhile, its transparent ledger and regulatory capture make it less private than cash or gold in practice. For Bitcoin to succeed as a store of value, it must solve fungibility and privacy at the protocol level—but its governance and inertia make this unlikely. Until then, its "digital gold" narrative remains precarious.