What? What you're describing isn't privacy, so you went from being a supporter of privacy to a now supporter of total transparency? If I were to give you a $20 bill, will you be able to see who previously had that $20 bill? So then why would you not want the same thing for crtypcurrencies?
No, he's saying the only way to know that the cryptocurrency is real and spendable is because of the transparent blockchain that everyone agrees on to confirm the existence (and by extension, value) of it.
The $20 is not a good analogy because it actually has a central issuing authority. But if you absolutely had to compare, you could loosely compare the fact that you can hold that $20 bill in your hand and examine it and see that it looks like every other one, and everyone else agrees that it is $20 when they see it, and they accept that it has the value of $20.
Nobody here is advocating the ability to see "who" had it previously. That would not be anonymous. That would be bitcoin.
Cryptocurrencies are supposed to be decentralized and not have to rely on a centralized authority to make decisions or oversee things, you saying that we need an arbiter is taking a step back towards the traditional banking/monetary system, which is what we(everyone or mostly everyone involved with Bitcoin/cryptos) are against.
No argument there. Again, that is what the transparent blockchain is for. Non-fakeable agreement by majority, not by a central authority.
He's making the assumption that a coin's value is somehow tired to it's transparency. Every transaction that happens in the blockchain isn't "agreed" on or overseen by everyone involved with bitcoin, it's a automated process(Which is what protects against forking/exploiting bitcoin besides the 51% attack, etc), so his comment about how a coin must somehow be transparent to have value, is truly illogical. You don't need a transparent blockchain to assign value to coins, it's perfectly done on a private blockchain(even better), because each coin in the eyes of an onlooker, the same as the other(Fungibility) and there's no room to "discriminate" against coins based on their transaction history like in an transparent blockchain. So his case about "invisible" coins and etc has no bearing here, the only situation where the entire blockchain and everything involved with it is totally out from view, or "invisible" is Zerocash, the points that he's made so far has no bearing against the Cryptonote/Ring Sig anon scheme.
