[mint2]

Okay so you’re saying NFTs are absolutely meaningless, what the holder solely owns is a 256 bit integer and absolutely nothing else?

Anyway, in this case unlike debatably with nfts, there is concrete value tied to possessing knowledge of the integer so acting like it’s just sharing random numbers is deceptive and rather easily detected deception. resorting to deceptive arguments generally makes people turn against the position of the one trying to deceive so if advocating for tornado devs, one should avoid that argument unless one is actually trying to make people against them.

[whatisweb3]

The point is: the protocol encrypts a private key, a private key is an integer, or text hash. Saying that it is OK to build tools that encrypt text, like Matrix protocol, but it is not OK to build tools that encrypt private-keys-as-text is a slippery slope.

Which one is it?

- privacy is a right, and people should be allowed to share knowledge privately

or,

- privacy is not a right, and people should only be allowed to share knowledge if that knowledge is not associated with "value"

[ShamelessC]

Repeating an argument _verbatim_ this many times just comes across as patronizing. We get it. You think numbers can’t be outlawed. You’re wrong and in general, pedantry/technicalities about theoretical computer science is _not_ going to help you when considering human power structures.

Someone else has told you this already, but you seem intent on ignoring it.

[whatisweb3]

You did not answer my simple question. :) Sorry to be a broken record by comparing this to E2EE privacy protocols, but many commenters on HN only seem to think privacy is worthwhile when in the form of a chat app.