I never said he was "pro-Bitcoin" per se, only that it's completely ridiculous to characterize him as, "out to get Bitcoin".
Supporting the discrimination of self-custody marks as "anti-Bitcoin" to me.
And yes, the US government wants to stop terrorism, and the attacks on our private institutions (esp. hospitals) that make use of tools that allow them to be paid without being traced.
You can't, though. Even if the excuse of surveilling everyone "for the sake of the children" was not ridiculous to begin with, it's simply no longer feasible in practice. The Internet makes it virtually impossible to monitor those who take care of their privacy, just as it makes it impractical to prevent encrypted messages from being transmitted.
But that's 0.01% of the market that even cares about that. Most people use a KYC'd exchange anyhow because they have nothing to hide from the government if they were to specifically target them.
I don't care what percentage that is. Discriminating people that self-custody their bitcoin is criminal, IMO, and definitely anti-Bitcoin.
You are whistling past the graveyard if you don't think this is a significant new risk to Bitcoin.
I don't consider him saint. I'm just noticing his stance on certain things, like crypto, and compare him to the other candidate. Given that one of them is anti-Bitcoin, because he uses tax payer money to fund blockchain surveillance and wants to pass laws that discriminate the very essence of bitcoin, I don't have high standards for the other one.