Complaining about the lack of privacy of BitCoin when using an exchange is like complaining that you did an illicit transaction in front of a police station to ensure you didn't get mugged, but are surprised when the police use security camera footage as evidence against you.
I am pointing out that it was "sold" as "anonymous", by the establishment. And it clearly could not be that, per spec.
In fact, I also remember that this feature of cryptocurrencies was subtly communicated to a larger audiance in conjunction with stories about "a group of hackers called Anonymous" -- you know, those guys with their suited headless figure in front of a globe with imperial laurels logo. (Someone must have gotten a good lolly laugh coming up with that zinger of a logo. Or possibly merely sniffed in contempt.)
http://www.newsweek.com/virtual-currency-bitcoin-anonymous-w...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/10/10/the-crypto-cur...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/06/bitcoin-inside-t...
https://techcrunch.com/2011/05/20/bitcoin-ven-and-the-end-of...
https://gizmodo.com/5803124/what-is-bitcoin
Hah. So the usual suspects were pimping it, in 2011, as "anonymous". Surprise!?
It's like the utopia of Internet sold in the 90s that predictably mutated into the global panopticon.
Always read the specifications. Always.