> Cryptocurrencies have also become useful asset stores for the wealthy living in authoritarian countries.

Again certainly not BTC. Any one of those stories over the last few months of people using Bitcoin as a currency of last resort are so sad because they all got rekt. Had they bought USDC or a hypothetical future CBDC or e-cash, they would be so much better off.

There's that story about the Ukrainian refugee who put his last $2000 worth into BTC when he fled the Russians. That's worth like $900 now.

It's proponents claim that it has all sorts of uses, but the only thing people actually use it for is illegal activity.

Since the Ross Ulbricht trial, it has become obvious that even using it for illegal activity is a bad idea, as it's easily traceable.

There are other privacy oriented coins that may do better than bitcoin for avoiding tracing (monero?) but the main reason criminals used it is it worked and nobody really cared about drugs, etc.

As for criminals, they have learned that authorities understand blockchains a lot better than they used to, and that there are professional firms tracking crypto movements. It's all public after all. Unless they're in a jurisdiction where they're safe from prosecution because they have state backing, it's not really used illegally much any more. So these cases are more state terrorism, where countries like Russia or North Korea intentionally hurt businesses in enemy states, or at least turn a blind eye in the latter case. In those cases it's ultimately the internet that enables it.

I also think criminals will avoid it like the plague. Bitcoin could conceivably tell law enforcement everywhere you received money from and everywhere you spent it. I realize it is one long number transacting with another long number, but law enforcement have computers too, and they have time on their side. Using bitcoins could be like leaving DNA on the scene of the crime - probably not a good idea if you want to get away with whatever you are doing.

Besides, illicit transactions are still transactions.

And.. you are just plain wrong. Bitcoin is also useful for buying many completely legal things. Including a VPN that can't be linked to your identity. (Illicit you say? What about a journalist in a repressive regime).

Bitcoin: it's the worst because it's transactions are traceable.

Or is the reality that criminal and non-criminals funds are already being obfuscated regularly because bitcoin is 12 years old and people already thought of this problem a decade ago

However, I think it's very easy to understand where it started and why it generally isn't in bad faith. Digital currencies (of which Bitcoin is the largest and most well known) make certain types of crimes easier (drugs by mail, ransomware). Those crimes (as they are understood) always involve a digital currency so they feel new (even if they aren't in many ways). Most people don't pay attention to digital currencies so it's not surprising that they associate them with new behavior that doesn't seem possible without them.

I also suspect that, if you were to break down digital currency activity, that most exchanges of goods and services (as opposed to investments) do choose to use a digital currency because it evades some regulatory processes or laws. With the transaction cost of Bitcoin at over $4[1] (down from over $50 recently), I really doubt that people are using it for many exchanges of goods or services where its digital qualities don't enable the transaction in some way.

[1] https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_f...

Edit: added a clarification about ransomware and drugs-by-mail. Ransomware and "darkweb markets" are based on older practices that, to an extent, are distinct because of digital currency. Corporate espionage and ransom demands are quite old, but we call generally call it "ransomware" when the extortion is based on holding digital assets and paying digitally as well.

All Law Enforcement has ever needed to do is trace back the transactions - something that's almost impossible with conventional currencies. Heck the equitable principle of 'Tracing' exists in Law because it's normally impossible to do that once monies have intermingled.

The sheer practicality of it is demonstrated in the fact that it's only worthwhile or practicable for Law Enforcement to investigate _large-scale_ money-laundering operations. Yet with Bitcoin you can essentially read back the exact history of every single satoshi.