You are splitting hairs in order to justify your cockamamie ideas.
Based on your statement, you intend to skirt the law/buck the system by way of your proposed implementation of such an absurd/silly concept. That's the fact that I'm referring to.(...)
A fact is something you can prove.
I did not intend on using that feature even if it were implemented; I'm an investor, not a coin user. So again you are referring to your subjective thoughts and opinions as "fact". This makes you a rumor-mongerer at best, and a manipulative bully at worst.
In either case, my interactions with you end here. (I'm sure you don't care; just saying it so you don't expect replies from me in the future.)
Splitting hairs again. Let me spell it out for you.
Fact: you stated you favor being able to have "plausible deniability" against the law through your cockamamie concept. It is already a matter of record since you have already posted it on here. Do I need more proof than that?
You need to ground yourself back to earth, man. But since you are an investor (it's a fact since you just stated it above and doesn't need any further proof), I'm not surprised at all that you're so out of touch of a cryptocurrency's primary use case. Stick to speculating and making loads of money then and leave the intricacies of development to the people who actually use the tokens as they are meant to be.