What makes you think if bitcoins (or any *coin) becomes the main currency in a country or region, we would not have laws were all addresses would need to be linked to people (or companies) and the ledger would not be used for figuring out and persecuting people supporting certain causes?
I would much prefer that the government is forced to actually follow the legal process, instead of what happened in 2010 with WikiLeaks, where the government made vague illegal threats against the banks, in order to censor transactions between people who broke zero laws.
It forces everything out in the open, instead of giving a couple banks the power to made hidden agreements between each other in order to collude and censor perfectly legal financial transactions.
And so far, the government has NOT made such a law. So guess what, that means it works!
This is not about people breaking the law. This is about people following the law, and yet private parties are STILL able to censor transactions through collusion and because of a few vague, and probably illegal, threats from the government.
The fact that the government has so far NOT been able to pass such laws, is innovation in and of itself. It means that it works right now for the purpose of making censorship resistant transactions, because before people WERE succeeding in censoring them, and yet now they aren't!
Trustworthiness of Wikileaks aside, do you think that's a $500 billion market? Donating to activist organizations?
"Worldwide, 230 million people send $500 billion in remittances each year, primarily using firms like Western Union, Moneygram, and RIA, which together control 1.1 million retail locations and account for more than 25% of the world’s annual remittance volume."
It's much more difficult to prove that person A transferred money to B via Bitcoin than it is via regular financial transactions due to Bitcoin's pseudonymity. Similar it's equally difficult to prevent this from happening.
Just that the you do not seem value in this (censorship-free transactions), does not make the argument invalid.
Time will tell if Wikileaks was really a noble cause, or if the banks were right all along.
But even IF they are convicted of a crime sometime in the future, this is 8 years later.
Censoring financial transactions should require a court order. Signed by a judge, and done through the normal criminal justice system. And it should be done publicly, so that judges and politicians are held accountable for their actions.
In America, due process is a constitutional right, and if someone is guilty of a crime, there is a process that we should be going through.
Punishment should not be inflicted upon others outside the court system via secret agreements and collusion between oligopolies.
We have laws and human rights for a reason. Don't be so quick to throw them away.
The year is 2010. And I am a normal citizen and I want to donate money to WikiLeaks without the banks colluding to stop my financial transaction, even though nobody has been convicted of a crime.
How do you do it? The only way I can think of to do this easily (easily being the key word!) is a cryptocurrency transaction.
Banks and credit card companies collude all the time in order to censor financial transactions between people who have committed no crimes.
Do you have a better way of easily sending censorship resistant financial transactions? Because Bitcoin worked just fine back in 2010 for this usecase, even though the banks tried to censor it on their platform.