It basically gives anyone with a desire to dox you the ability to target you with a dust attack.
Precisely.
the bigger debate is about whether it should be normalized.
Correct.
the recipients are not forced into any privacy loss. But they are definitely forced into an uncomfortable and risky privacy tradeoff.
Not only that, but given the fully transparent nature of onchain transactions you could get people into all kinds of trouble very easily.
Imagine being a politician in Bangladesh (or a similar high-profile person, in any country that deems bitcoin an illegal substance). Any political opponent can provably send you this illegal substance, prove that you are "in possession" of it, and either prove that you did something with it (or prove that you are still in possession of it) without they themselves revealing who they are.
Politicians are on nostr right now. Leopoldo Lopez is one example.
That's just one attack vector of many, and I tried to make a similar point when I talking about the OFAC list.
Precisely.
Correct.
Not only that, but given the fully transparent nature of onchain transactions you could get people into all kinds of trouble very easily.
Imagine being a politician in Bangladesh (or a similar high-profile person, in any country that deems bitcoin an illegal substance). Any political opponent can provably send you this illegal substance, prove that you are "in possession" of it, and either prove that you did something with it (or prove that you are still in possession of it) without they themselves revealing who they are.
Politicians are on nostr right now. Leopoldo Lopez is one example.
That's just one attack vector of many, and I tried to make a similar point when I talking about the OFAC list.