Interesting comparisons.

No. It should be ensured if it stops being a niche subject, and that requires education. If people don't care about their privacy, I'm not going to I can't enforce them do. Leave the technical stuff asides for a sec. As long as society is consisted by mostly people who either don't care about their privacy or don't want the others to have privacy, then enforcing privacy is only going to form niche. On the other hand, optional privacy fits us all better.

It does use encryption and provides a little privacy though.

That is indeed a nice counter-argument against cencership on Bitcoin.
What seems much more likely to me is a "smart-approach" - if layer1 privacy on a protocol level were to happen (as far as I am imformed) it would need a hardfork. - So it shouldn't be to difficult for big states to "convince" miners to not go with the privacy-update, because this chain will  be made illegal to use.
Quite certainly, still a big number of people will switch to the privacy chain, but I am doubtful this will be the majority. Even if, it would create a big split in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Well spoken on the education part. That is the unfortunate truth, right now only a minority of people is aware of the value of privacy.
I mean, we have a state of over 1 billion people successfully trying to undermine any digital privacy of their citizens. Other western countries have more liberties but technology is faster than education and legislation, so it is a race that most people are losing right now.

I understand what you are saying. And if it ever comes to a point where crypto will become heavily regulated or even outlawed in some cases, I think stablecoins and privacy coins will be the first targets of such sanctions. We shouldn't forget coin mixing services either. I don't think it's a good idea to put Bitcoin on top of such a list. We know that Monero and privacy coins are already banned on many centralized exchanges. Even if you don't use those, they are the most popular way to trade crypto and it tells you a lot about what the future could look like.

Wasn't Litecoin also delisted by a bunch of exchanges during the summer after the MimbleWimble upgrade went live? They experimented with a better privacy solution and there is your result. I just don't see bitcoin becoming a widely accepted payment method if there is a CEX-wide ban and if we are going to have to hide in some back alleys to trade with each other. 

If it is, we need to change the definition of what FUD is or how we interpret it. Being realistic and even pessimistic shouldn't have negative connotations. Being pessimistic also doesn't mean that you wish that the worst-case scenario is going to happen. It's just a state of mind. You can be a pessimist but still hope and cheer for a positive outcome.   

I really hope so. But here is the pessimist in me. I don't think there will be consensus for such a change. Why? Because privacy advocates aren't the majority of the users. If you ask the average Joe if he would rather use the bitcoin we have today with less privacy and a public ledger, or one with increased privacy and private ledger, I think many would pick the first option.

With the first type, not so many questions are asked. The second one could bring about more questions. Who are you? Where are you from? What is the source of your funds? Why are you using a private currency? Centralized exchanges couldn't care less about bitcoin as long as they make their money. If they can replace the lost profits from delisting a private bitcoin by getting funding from elsewhere (let's say from those who would be interested in destroying Bitcoin), I think that many wouldn't mind. I would rather not be in the position of having to find out what will happen.

Satoshi's whitepaper doesn't speak about a privacy coin or a private network. If we hardfork towards such a path, are we still using bitcon and where do we draw the line of what is acceptable and what isn't?

I still remember that in beginning they were promoting like they super pro-privacy, even about taking legal actions against exchangers who block user accounts for making deposits from Wasabi, talking about making Chainalysis going out of business...and now they are cooperating with them. What's the point? Privacy friendly surveillance?! LOL!

They can never ban bitcoin if it's used the way it was intended - as P2P cash. They can ban what it has become in the meantime. An asset that is controlled and traded through centralized exchanges and similar services. The Central Banks together with their regular bank buddies can ban the transfer of funds to/from anything related to crypto. But a permissionless coin doesn't need their permission to move from A to B. They can never take away my right to meet you somewhere and exchange what we want face to face.   

True, although I wouldn't use that as arguments in bitcoin's favor. We want to get the general public to support bitcoin, and make them see that their government is taking away their freedoms little by little. Darknet markets and ransomware attacks, although good examples of what Bitcoin can do, aren't something a non-bitcoiner will find to be impressive features.

Plus, the government and media are just going to use that to their advantage to say how bad bitcoin is because it allows criminals and drug dealers to sell drugs and poison our children.   

I am not saying we should demand or disallow anything. It's your money and your choices. I am just saying there are better ways to market this economy than talking about dark markets. If your parents asked you to explain what bitcoin is used for, you aren't going to tell them it makes it easier for you to get heroin, meth, and fake IDs from underground forums.

Instead, tell them about borderless payments, cheap fees regardless of the amounts being sent, the speed of transaction finality, or the irreversible nature of it. Although, even the irreversibility is a feature that could scare people away, and they could instead consider it a fault or a weakness. Especially if a bank helped them correct some mistakes they made at one point in the past. 

As far as I know, he is not directly connected with Wasabi and other Bitcoin wallets.
WEF is one of the main promoters of CBDC crap, and I bet someone from ethereum shitcoin foundation will be there, it's one of their favorite little projects for a while.
It's ''good'' to hear 5000 swiss army soldiers, fighter jets, plus their private security will protect all this ''nice'' guys having good time and playing world economic fun games, while there is no-fly zone during this event.
I wonder why are they so afraid of regular people...

A heavily regulated one that cares little about me and you. One that plays ball and listens to Uncle Sam or whoever is in charge in that particular territory. 

No it isn't, but it's still a coin that makes you money through trading fees. You still earn when your customers withdraw it. It's not the best earner, but it's up there near the top 10. Instead of doing nothing, you (the exchange) ban it because someone told you to or suggested it would be in your best interest maybe.