Thought provoking. In my opinion bitcoin should be designed in a way to where there is no distinction between "clean" bitcoins and "dirty" bitcoins. If one bitcoin is considered dirty then all bitcoins should be considered dirty. Fungibility is important. And bitcoin or its users should not be concerned with pleasing governments. Bitcoin should be or remain neutral. The term "clean" or "dirty" is defined by whatever government is in power. Bitcoin is not to please government but to be independent of government control and reliance on government or any other centralized systems. To act as censorship resistant money to give people freedom from tyranny. I'm just saying that if anyone can determine if a bitcoin is clean or dirty then I think we are doing something wrong. What is great with certain protocols like coinjoin coinswap and payjoin there is that plausible deniability that hopefully would spread the entire "taint" of bitcoin collectively either for real or just as a possibility to any blockchain analysis entities (with no real way to tell or interpret with accuracy).
Bitcoin should be designed in a way where the only way to stop "dirty" bitcoins is to reject all bitcoins. If "dirty" bitcoins is actually a real thing then I guess I could have fun by polluting random peoples bitcoin addresses with "dirty" coins right? No way to prove if it is a self transfer or an unsolicited "donation". I just do not see how any bitcoin UTXO censorship could work because of plausible deniability. If any company actually used UTXO censorship then customers can just use services that are respecting of freedom and do not use censorship. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev