You could argue that it's subjective, but some of their history in the blockchain are based on facts.
It is absolutely subjective, as I've talked about before:
I did a small experiment some time ago regarding blockchain analysis:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395035.msg59905002#msg59905002One particular piece of blockchain analysis software put a significant amount of coins in the wallet of various centralized exchanges in one of the categories of scams, hacks, or blacklists. Obviously the blockchain analysis software being used by these exchanges did not classify these coins in this manner, otherwise they wouldn't have accepted those coins. The fact that two different pieces of software can come to completely different conclusions about the exact same coins should be more than enough to tell you that blockchain analysis is made up trash.
One of the core principles of any piece of science is that its results are repeatable and independently verifiable. If I come up with a process to say, isolate gold from an alloy, then I publish my methods and other people perform the same steps, end up with the same results, and verify my process works.
If I come up with a process to say some coins are tainted, and other people do the same thing and end up with completely different results, then my process is bullshit.Even Chainalysis themselves admit that there is absolutely zero scientific evidence underpinning any of their blockchain analysis bullshit:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5464886.msg62875591#msg62875591If a Satoshi actually went through an address that's verified active in the Dark Markets, then those UTXOs are "tainted".
The satoshi is just a satoshi. It is not anything else. If some centralized entity decides that they don't want to accept that satoshi, fine. Their loss. It makes absolutely zero different to me owning that satoshi or spending that satoshi with entities which are not anti-bitcoin.
Right now some governments are trying their hardest to not have it that way. And are partly succeeding.
They are partly succeeding
only because they are convincing people like 1miau's friend that taint isn't made up bullshit and that he needs to spy on any coins he's buying.
Every single coin which passes a mixer or is coinjoined is deemed as tainted, because a fraction of the input is involved in illegal activity. You can't seriously argue that mixed coins being reasonably called tainted is based on facts, because it is half insane and half guesswork.
Worse than that. Coins from hacks and scams have 100% passed through the hot wallets of Binance, Coinbase, and every other major exchange in existence. By the exact same logic that say mixed coins are tainted, then any and all coins withdrawn from a centralized exchange are also tainted. In fact, pretty much every bitcoin in active circulation is tainted. And as my little experiment above shows, coins from one centralized exchange may not necessarily be accepted by another centralized exchange.
The more we accept this bullshit and modify our behavior to comply with it, the more strength we give it and the more we weaken bitcoin as a currency and as a concept.