My view on that is different. The problem is that yes, they would shoot themselves in their knees, but not because of some conspiracy of evil elites, but because the "common folks" (=voters) are more focused on security than on privacy. Their biggest fear is to get robbed, not to get imprisoned unjustly. So if a politician fights for real privacy, there will always be one of another party accusing them to "increase criminality" or to "protect the criminals". And have we already talked about "protecting our children" (See Australia's mandatory KYC for social media)?   And the "security-focused" mob is currently significantly bigger than the privacy-focused mob. It's an uphill battle, but perhaps with education and communication something can be changed eventually. Even in Libertarian circles most are only caring about paying the least possible amount of taxes, privacy is a minor topic. I get what you mean, but a malicious Bisq user can in theory sell your bank data to criminals. A CEX can do that too, but if they're regulated they would commit a crime and put their business model in danger if that became known, so there's an incentive against it. Careful selection of trading partners and additional security measures is thus paramount for Bisq users. I would only use it with a secondary bank account I only top up with "play money" sometimes. For Average Joes that's already a quite complicated thought process.
My view on that is different. The problem is that yes, they would shoot themselves in their knees, but not because of some conspiracy of evil elites, but because the "common folks" (=voters) are more focused on security than on privacy. Their biggest fear is to get robbed, not to get imprisoned unjustly. So if a politician fights for real privacy, there will always be one of another party accusing them to "increase criminality" or to "protect the criminals". And have we already talked about "protecting our children" (See Australia's mandatory KYC for social media)?   And the "security-focused" mob is currently significantly bigger than the privacy-focused mob. It's an uphill battle, but perhaps with education and communication something can be changed eventually. Even in Libertarian circles most are only caring about paying the least possible amount of taxes, privacy is a minor topic. I get what you mean, but a malicious Bisq user can in theory sell your bank data to criminals. A CEX can do that too, but if they're regulated they would commit a crime and put their business model in danger if that became known, so there's an incentive against it. Careful selection of trading partners and additional security measures is thus paramount for Bisq users. I would only use it with a secondary bank account I only top up with "play money" sometimes. For Average Joes that's already a quite complicated thought process.

My view on that is different. The problem is that yes, they would shoot themselves in their knees, but not because of some conspiracy of evil elites, but because the "common folks" (=voters) are more focused on security than on privacy. Their biggest fear is to get robbed, not to get imprisoned unjustly. So if a politician fights for real privacy, there will always be one of another party accusing them to "increase criminality" or to "protect the criminals". And have we already talked about "protecting our children" (See Australia's mandatory KYC for social media)?   And the "security-focused" mob is currently significantly bigger than the privacy-focused mob. It's an uphill battle, but perhaps with education and communication something can be changed eventually. Even in Libertarian circles most are only caring about paying the least possible amount of taxes, privacy is a minor topic. I get what you mean, but a malicious Bisq user can in theory sell your bank data to criminals. A CEX can do that too, but if they're regulated they would commit a crime and put their business model in danger if that became known, so there's an incentive against it. Careful selection of trading partners and additional security measures is thus paramount for Bisq users. I would only use it with a secondary bank account I only top up with "play money" sometimes. For Average Joes that's already a quite complicated thought process.

My view on that is different. The problem is that yes, they would shoot themselves in their knees, but not because of some conspiracy of evil elites, but because the "common folks" (=voters) are more focused on security than on privacy. Their biggest fear is to get robbed, not to get imprisoned unjustly. So if a politician fights for real privacy, there will always be one of another party accusing them to "increase criminality" or to "protect the criminals". And have we already talked about "protecting our children" (See Australia's mandatory KYC for social media)?   And the "security-focused" mob is currently significantly bigger than the privacy-focused mob. It's an uphill battle, but perhaps with education and communication something can be changed eventually. Even in Libertarian circles most are only caring about paying the least possible amount of taxes, privacy is a minor topic. I get what you mean, but a malicious Bisq user can in theory sell your bank data to criminals. A CEX can do that too, but if they're regulated they would commit a crime and put their business model in danger if that became known, so there's an incentive against it. Careful selection of trading partners and additional security measures is thus paramount for Bisq users. I would only use it with a secondary bank account I only top up with "play money" sometimes. For Average Joes that's already a quite complicated thought process.