I noticed that Monero comment/tweet on Bobby Lee's twitter. It made me ponder the whole "privacy" issue... followed by the tricky analysis of where simple and basic "privacy" ends... and systems to protect illicit and antisocial behavior begins.

In crypto circles we have a lot of self-proclaimed anarchists and Libertarians, among whome the broader public image is that privacy is to protect us from government interference. Fair enough, on the surface. But what exactly is it people want to hide?

For example, should we have privacy systems that "protects" someone's ability to kidnap children and anonymously collect payment to have sick and twisted individuals do unthinkable things to them, for "sport" or "entertainment?" Because (in a narrowly interpreted sense) that constitutes "freedom?"

But I digress... as you point out, completely "untraceable" is super hard to functionally implement; even if a business seller went through a "forwarding house" (i.e. the order comes to my business from a forwarder; that's where I ship things, I don't see the end user's name; the forwarder sends the goods and "shreds" all customer evidence at time of shipment or confirmed receipt) there will still be "trails" that could ultimately be dug up.

I keep coming back to the same place... often the most privacy isn't available through technology, but by going completely "analog." Although of dubious functionality on a large... things like my wife trading life coaching sessions for organic veggies; the "transaction" is completely private because it essentially doesn't "exist" outside the minds of her and her client.

So I end up back at your point of "Do enough people really care?" As a general person with no love for the government, I'm content with "pretty hard to trace." And my cynical nature keeps asking that is someone is obsessed with "total" privacy... what exactly are you trying to keep hidden?