The "trade-off" system is where nobody has any privacy except for politically-protected criminals.

>If a currency can be used completely free of interference from the government, then it can and will be used for crime.

If a currency can't be used completely free of interference from the government, then it can and will be used for crime.

Governments always want more control. More control requires trust. Governments have not shown themselves trustworthy.

Random people on the internet have also proven themselves to be untrustworthy. At least I know who the elected officials are.

Random people on the internet have enslaved and/or killed far fewer people than governments have.

This is a non sequitur. It's also true that governments have saved far more people from being killed and/or enslaved than random people on the internet have.

"... demand, rightly, that the government put a stop to it." Why "rightly?" This isn't the right way to fight crime. You start with "if crime is easier..." That is the problem, not the payment.

"Rightly" because one of the jobs of government is to enforce its laws. And yes, it is true that if crime is easy to do, there will be more of it. The payment part is key because getting paid is the key motivation for many crimes - those scammers from "visa bank" aren't calling you because its fun for them. An example is ransomware attacks - without an unregulated anonymous digital payment system the getting paid part of this crime would be much more difficult. Are they going to try and pick up a bag of cash?

>Total government control has problems because of potential abuses, by politicians.

Now that's an understatement. When in doubt, err on the side of limited government control.

In the US, we have a history of what happens when citizens were wronged and there are no laws or enforcement of laws to help them: Vigilantism. And lemme say right off the bat, it's a pretty bad system. Look up "3-7-77" sometime.

I, personally, would prefer minor political abuse instead of citizen enforcement of "rights" in the absence of laws or enforcement of those laws. Because the latter quickly gives lie to the "governments have a monopoly on force" catechism.

That's my point, its a trade off. Who decides what 'limited' means? The answer is the that it depends who already has the most power. In China, you can be certain any new e-currency of any form will be completely controlled and monitored by the central government. But in western democracies, there is at least a chance that a negotiated balance between oversight and control needed to prevent crime, and privacy and autonomy for citizens. But there has to be that balance. A completely unpolicable currency/financial system is just as bad (but in different ways) as a completely policed one.

Excellent points. I'd suggest that even if the financial records are completely untraceable that policing would still be possible. Of course, it wouldn't be as easy as full transparency.

Perhaps I'm in a stage of paranoia when I think that all democracies are on a slow inevitable slide toward a China-like fully monitored economic system. Either with or without cryptos.

I would think the trade-off is between who will be committing the crimes, the governed or the government, not how much crime there will be.

I agree. Crime is not something that can be eliminated. But you can develop systems where its minimized and others where its maximized. The two extremes of totally policed, and not policable at all, are both examples of systems which will maximize crime. This seems obvious to me which is why I don't understand why people think a completely decentralized, anonymous, unregulated currency, with irreversible transactions is a good thing. It creates as many problems as it solves.