[meowface]

I think this is a valid argument. I also think a corollary argument is that it's also valid to decide not to use a bank, though, and do a lot of things purely through cryptocurrency even if you're not doing anything shady or illegal, since, as another comment says, "as long as there are reasonable checks and balances" isn't necessarily a guarantee you can always rely on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27315773

>> but how have we always just accepted the lack of personal privacy when it comes to finance?

>We didn't. This is something that has changed in the UK in my lifetime. Unless you were the subject of an investigation you didn't have to provide much detail to the tax authorities, and what you did provide was kept strictly separate from other areas of government.

>There was an attempt to strike a balance with the emphasis on privacy. Nowadays the government thinks it is entitled to all the data all the time.

[wpietri]

People definitely have differing views on what "reasonable checks and balances" mean; here in the US we have whole movements of people with... strong opinions on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

I agree it's valid not to use a bank; one could try to conduct all one's business in cash. But in practice, people doing that are often doing something criminal, so people using cryptocurrency should not be surprised that they end up being treated with the same level of scrutiny as people running around with briefcases of cash. That is to say, their attempts at secrecy may result in a practical loss of privacy.

[meowface]

That's true. I personally don't mind using banks and don't mind them knowing what I do with my money and perhaps the government knowing as well. But I wouldn't necessarily judge someone who doesn't want to use one.