Edited to account for your additional response (explanation) that came after my post.

Ok.. maybe I had been influenced by the wrong facts on that topic?

I am not anti-CZ... generally speaking.. .. and so I otherwise stand by my overall attempt to make the point that it could take a while to figure out who the hacker of Luke's coins might be (presuming that Luke actually lost the coins to a hacker as he has asserted to be the case), even if some folks are trying to follow and identify the hacker.

Regarding your last point..

You are not even close to unbiased, even if you want to be patting ur lil selfie on the back as if you were the greatest thing since sliced-bread... #justsaying.  You do make some pretty decent points sometimes, though.. even though at other times, you seem to be totally off-of-your rocker, if you have such a rocker?

Bitcoin allows tracking of funds, and by tracking funds you can find those who interacted with the owner, which could lead to finding the owners identity. KYC is not the only way it can happen, just the most common and easy one.

Imagine a thief selling coins for cash during in-person meeting, and the chainanalysis tracks down the buyer of the coins, since they do a lot of transactions and leave a large footprint. So the law enforcement questions this buyer and looks at the camera records near the place where the trade happened and get a pretty good profile of the criminal.

If Bitcoin protocol or Bitcoin ecosystem could guarantee that a previous transaction can not be linked with the next transactions, identifying users would become less likely.

kinda funny how a btc dev is seeking help from the gov lol

Or maybe chainanalysis is so strong that it can unmix the mixed coins, so even if the thief did everything correctly, the funds will be tracked.

As I understand, mixing is not formally proven to break the connection between coins, it's just that no one has managed to demonstrate the opposite so far. But chainanalysis companies have been working on it all these years, so there's a possibility that they will come up with a solution or maybe already have. It could be probabilistic - it may not work for every output, and sometimes provides false results.

monero has atomic swaps.

atomic swaps are anonymous. far as i know.   so the thief takes some dirty bitcoin and swaps it for some xmr. then later on sometime he does another atomic swap in the other direction to clean his bitcoin. money laundering 101.

For the most part, unmixing coins requires to flag lots of innocent users as thieves. So yeah, if you're about to flag nearly every user who'll either use a mixer or coinjoin coins, then you'll most likely hit the thief too. The question is: can you point the thief's coins?

If you think this is a good analogy, you should stop using bitcoin, because it's clearly possible for your coins to be mixed with "dirty" coins as you call at some point, unless you don't use bitcoin as currency and just hold it for eternity.

Such news is disturbing, think of a developer whose wallet was hacked, a so-called technical expert but a hacker still managed to get into it. Does that mean he is still victimized because of negligence or being careless or complacent?

If this is one of the technical experts who has been robbed, what about the other communities here who don't know anything about these matters, they are very poor, right? This means that hackers are indiscriminate, as long as they have an opportunity they will steal right away.

Do you believe in dirty fiat or have you adopted this nonsense for bitcoin solely? As money is concerned, it's fungible. Any opposition to this fact attacks only you and your fellows.

You say that I should be concerned, rather than you, because I'm the one who mixes bitcoin. Let me ask you, how do you know you haven't exchanged with someone who did mix coins without you knowing it? Or someone you exchanged with, did exchange with someone who mixed once? And it goes on and on, how do you know you aren't connected with some suspicious activity, without your knowledge? From a blockchain perspective, every transaction can lead to a coinbase transaction, and it's likely someone mixed among all those transactions.

It is true that regular people do all kinds of weird shit, and then sometimes any of us who are wiling to transact might end up getting connected to their transactions.

I remember in about 2017-ish I was introduced to a guy who wanted to meet with me so that I could sell him bitcoin directly. One of his friends had recommended to go to me to get bitcoin, and at first I had to tell him that I would not transact with him unless he had at least $300, but then when I finally met him after he was able to accumulate at least $300, he told me that he wanted me to send the bitcoin to a "one coin" address.   I would frequently try to inform people about the differences of having their own wallet versus using a third party wallet, and I would suggest that there were several advantages towards having their own wallet rather than having me send BTC to a third party (which was their account).  

Sometimes people are in a rush, and they might have other reasons, and from my own point of view, I might try to consider if I might choose my wallet (or sending address) differently based on the wallet that I am sending to, and if the transactions are not very large, then there might be fewer concerns about sorting out these kinds of matters, even though surely if coins are being traced then sometimes there could be lower and lower coin amount thresholds that trigger attention from folks tracing the coins.

In my first interaction with the one coin guy, I told him that one coin was a scam, and he really should just buy bitcoin directly rather than getting scammed out of his money.  He was in his early 30s, perhaps?  and he surely was an adult, yet he told me that he really wants to send bitcoin to that one coin address because his friend had recommended that was what he was supposed to do, so I told him that as long as he gives me $300 and a valid bitcoin address, I don't care where I send the bitcoin that he is purchasing, and he is responsible for the whole matter in regards to the validity of the receiving address and if he would be able to get access to his coins.. or credit for having had received the coins from me to that address that he was giving me.  

So over the next several months, I transacted with the guy several times and various amounts, and each time I told him that one coin is a scam, and there were times in which the address was not working or that he called me and said that the transaction had not gone through and I would tell him that I sent it or that it looks like it went through on my side or that I would confirm the number of confirmations might vary depending on who is receiving the BTC and various strange things, but he kept coming back to me every few weeks, until at one point when he did not.. but it was a bit weird of a situation that each time I would lecture him, and he would insist on going through with the transaction in spite of variations of my lectures... Maybe I would reconsider the matter today?  I am not sure.  the amounts did not tend to be that much, and sometimes I would just use the same wallet that I had used previously, and other times I would send from a different wallet (or a different address).  

I don't recall having coin control capabilities at that time beyond my then practices to run some addresses or wallets until they would go to zero and then to recharge the wallet after running it to zero in order to lessen the amount of traceability.. but still I could see that I could end up being targeted based on some of those kinds of weird transactions.  I would also frequently tell strangers that I would not transact with them more than a few thousand dollars on the first time, and sometimes people wanted to do very large transactions, and I would not meet with those kinds of people or agree to doing what I considered to be large transactions.. and they would sometimes call me names and various things like that after I said that I would not do those... Direct transactions with strangers can sometimes end up in strange places, I suppose.. and sometimes we might believe that we are engaging in some innocent transaction with a vendor, and then the vendor might have had some $10k plus transaction or maybe even several very large transactions with questionable people, but then we get roped into his/her chain of transactions.  

I try to be careful, but at the same time, I believe that we should try to promote doing transactions without having to gather data..

I told one of my relatives that if I transact with him and he wants to buy bitcoin from me, that he would have to pay me 5% above the spot price, and he seemed to be very turned off by the idea that i would charge him a fee.. so sometimes newbies might not really know the difference between what might be KYC free coins and the ones gotten through KYC channels... I told him that he can get his coins on an exchange too.. but there could be some value in his holding coins directly rather than getting them on an exchange or holding them on an exchange, and he did seem to appreciate the idea of holding value outside of systems (comparable to holding private stashes of gold).

I recall also in late 2017, there were all kind of crazy people contacting me and wanting to buy BTC from me and I kept raising my premium, and I think that I got up to 12% for a few transactions.. usually the lowest that I would be would be 5%, but if I was getting too many folks at that price, I would raise it, just to weed people out, and I could have charged more than 12% during those crazy times (even 20%), but I did not want to.  At some point, I just went completely off of the availability status and would tell people that I was not doing any transactions with strangers until the crazy-bitcoin atmosphere cooled down, and even people who I knew, I limited how much I would consider transacting with them because the whole environment in late 2017 and into early 2018 was feeling weird and unsafe to me...

BTC Price runs can cause some weird behaviors, especially when interacting with people directly... and yeah, we could end up transacting with folks who might either directly be involved in shady activities or folks who had been transacting directly with their own web of shady folks.  The world of interactions might not be too far removed from the necessary number of hops before some transactions might end up being potentially shady.