first of all. if you dont know the true identity, location of the recipient.. no central authority can do anything about it. even if you get a shiny gold leaf certificate saying your the victim, it wont help you get funds back. after all how will you get your funds if you cant even slap the recipient

if you do know the true identity of the recipient. then take them to court. it doesnt matter if they stole btc, a goldfish, your wifes underwear or a lawnmower. you can still take them to court

secondly
with fiat many people who send funds somewhere do so for bad intentions of getting the goods/service they are buying and then once received. claim they are a victim of fraud to then get thier funds back too.. so any central authority wont just accept a simple victim cry story and you instantly win. you wont be compensated just for suggesting a victim story. you need to know the recipient and get them to defend their side and if proven guilty enforced to repay their illicit gains back to you.
i say this because idea's like this topic presents is not original. they end up turning into silly secondary idea's of making bitcoin transactions reversible if a known jury multisig is used to get the funds from the guilty persons private key. which as i said could be abused by what is termed 'chargeback scammers'. it also opens up other attack vectors of abuse. so it aint gonna happen

take a look at the topic creators first post, the image more specifically what word is marked as 1.
oh look
so what is that misleading word that the graphic is implying that these innovations improve the most
no need to answer as its a rhetorical question as people can already see it for themselves

have a nice day. just dont be one of those people that try putting the word scaling into the same sentance of schnorr benefits. try using prevent descaling if you atleast want to be honest about the benefits

oh and one last thing..
if you have not learned this already. cores new bypass technique does not need consensus, does not cause forks, is not a case of only activating at an acceptable threshold. there is no way to actually prevent devs putting it in and having such new funky tx's added to blocks.
the UASF you speak of is actually just a translation of 'if you dont like it F**k off and go play with an altcoin'
** = both UC and OR

EDIT:
because some centralising censor loving dv wants to stay as protocol decision leader

answering post below because answer got deleted
schnorr does not benefit scaling. because
1. you cannot schnorr already existing tx,
2. it only benefits new TX which would be bloated without it.

as of today the average multisig is not that signature/script heavy.
and
those signatures/scripts sit OUTSIDE the baseblock, thus no transaction count increase
what schnorr does is reduce the bloat in the witnss area so that the 3mb of witness is filled too fast to hit its limit that will limit how many transactions can fit into the base block

again what schnorr actually does is hide bloat of future scripts thus to avoid causing a DECREASE in transaction count utility.
yes thats right future scripts could be kilobytes big which would reduce the average transaction count from thousands to hundreds

take this example
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block-height/540107
2.26mb hard drive
1mb of baseblock tx
but....... only 230tx
yep that block appears as full but only 230tx included
thats not about having features to bring tx count over the 600k a day threshold, its to stop new tx scripts from bringing transaction averages down

the small benefit if any is not in scaling. but in avoiding descaling bcoming common
there have not been really any big utility of spammy bloated scripts thus far, which have produced a full 4mb weight to cause a major downtrend in base block transaction count occupancy.
thus not a major/regular problem YET which schnorr would have evaded if implemented sooner.

to my memory i can only remember 1 block that appeared 4mb weight spammy without offering good transaction count.
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/00000000000000000021868c2cefc52a480d173c849412fe81c4e5ab806f94ab
block 540107
cores 'weight' utility     3993.089 kWU (limit appears as full)
total actual hard drive spam 2,26mb
number of transactions 230

i think that there is a failure in scaling. 2.26mb for just 230 transactions,
not only that but cores myth of more transactions and upto4mb of space per block has failed because although thier wishy wash math conversions made a block appear as 4mb to hit the limit. the hard drive data and transaction count is no were near 4x of average

but anyway i digressed...
again its about preventing the risk of bloated scripts DE-SCALING block transaction count not increasing the transaction count
fun fact: bitcoin had been calculated YEARS before segwit to handle upto 600k tx a day.
even now we have not seen a single day exceed that. which shows core have not achieved scaling at all.


again its about preventing the risk of bloated scripts DE-SCALING block transaction count. bloated by new scripts that would bloat blocks if they didnt implement schnorr and other stuff to hide the bloat they want to introduce
oh and last thing. reset your teachings from obvious sources..
calling onchain the base layer.. thus trying to push the narrative that other networks that dont even use a blockchain are somehow still a layer of 'bitcoin'.. (you really have been looking to the wrong people for your info)

if it aint on a bitcoin blockchain. it aint bitcoin

i guess you miss the fact that blockchain data is clear to see, you can easily see where coins go.
for instance. some pools move coins in large clusters. some make a transaction paying out to lots of little amounts.
its easy to spot differences where say slush pool is paying out to individual hobby miners their small amounts or paying a large player a single large amount
you can then follow the spends to see how long it takes and how many spends it takes to then end up in known exchange cold wallets

add to that when main pool owners do interviews they explain their business models and even laugh when people presume that large pool owners sell on exchanges and be held to the whims of such volatility.

yes the little hobby miners that only earn a few crumbs an hour are too small to even bother investigating, plus their crumbs dont have much impact to b of concern. but the bigger pools do actually talk alot about how sustainable their business models are.

some unrelated stuff i found funny when looking into pools handling of funds.. couple years back the propaganda machine was rampant. there were pools like slush pool who were very vocal about their love of segwit and then the propaganda machine saying btc.com was very much anti-segwit.. funny part is 2 years later and slushpool put their coin rewards on legacy (1) addresses and btc.com put them on segwit(bc1q) addresses
and on unrelated note i still see peter wuille who developed segwit still prefers to accept donations through a legacy address

all im saying is there is quite alot you can actually learn if people actually bother to investigate/research.
too many people still think bitcoin is anonymous and no info can be found about anything..

of course the small pools made up of individuals syndicating their hashpower end up taking their slices ofcoin to exchanges,
but thats more about not having the volum/big enough slice of the pie to excite otc traders

but the larger pools that win more often because they are running industrial factory size farms, need to know before wasting electric that they can be sustainable. they cant plan buying new asics and upgrading and paying bills by relying on the whims of the open market.

hense why they preplan days,weeks,months ahead what their growth strategies are going to b and that only happens if they have buyers commiting to valuation contract and by not impacting the open market price which would then harm their 'value' which they privately quote, because if coins become cheaper to buy on an open market instead of otc. then they cant remain sustainable. so ofcourse they are not gonna shoot themselves in the foot for short term gain which would harm long term growth

OTC trades have been happening for years. its not like a recent development which has suddenly changed the equilibrium. it found its niche and markets both otc and public exchange found their balance of supply and demand years ago.

but as i say its not like yesterdays 300btc from a top pool suddenly hits an exchange once the 100th confirm matures the funds. instead thats done off exchange and then later (weeks/months) the recipients have distributed funds even further and into smaller allocations so that by the time those coins do end up on an exchange due to smaller fish rather than a big whale, the funds are spread more thinly and at different times to not cause a drastic impact/walls

lastly. when talking about supply/demand.
exchanges are very bad at displaying supply and demand.
for one, although there are 18mill coins in circulation. recent graphs suggest only 10% of that sit on exchanges. so the supply is never going to be all coins.. nor should it. so never ever think that fresh minted coins should be put onto exchanges. people can hoard coins if they want, and they obviously do. 90% of people are hoarding

as for demand. again exchanges are poor examples. take AML/KYC that paperwork restricts institutions from buying $millions (120 coins+) the liquidity of exchanges is low per user. so dont expect an institution to deposit $3m to try grabbing 360+ coins.  firstly exchanges would have to go through extra paperwork to even allow that, but also by say the 30th btc the price would be rising and by the time they spent the first $1m they would have raised the price significantly that they would not even get a 360btc target. and be just shooting themselves in the foot the more they buy the more the price rises meaning they are getting less coin for their fiat.

the private trades are called OTC trades (over the counter)

motives:
1. avoid causing coins to be put on exchanges to affect prices
     a. imagine selling on an exchange a days worth of coins would impact the price.
         with some pools having 15% of blocks (26 blocks of 12.5=325ccoins) so selling 325coins in one go is enough to change the price
     b. they just dont have time to break it down and just be selling their single blockrewards of 12.5 coins every hour.
     c. they have less control of the price if using public exchanges, no one can predict the public exchange price an hour ahead

2. able to control the price
     a. by having pre-planned contracts for private buyers to buy at $xxxx pools can then know they can cover the electric
     b. by knowing they can cover their bills they can then ensure they put the most electric into the most amount of asics
     c. pools dont react to public prices. instead they have orders pre arranged and controlled.
     d. this is why you dont see smart pools jumping up and down in hashrate every minute a public exchange price changes

3. buyer gets coins at a controlled rate/cost without all the volatility which they would themselves cause if done on public exchanges

4. institutions dont want coins with bad taint and have no clue even when buying on an exchange what taint they will end up with until they hit the withdrawal button. so they want to avoid taint, thus avoid public exchanges.

5. just like buying shares institutions dont want to go around buying little snippets of shares from small share holders. they dont have the time and dont want the hassle and of course they dont want to trigger the rumour mill if news starts going around that they want to buy alot of shares in one go. its better to only deal with big hoarders and do it in private so that the common man doesnt get emotional about news they would hear if it was done publicly

imagine it. most exchanges show orders of 0.001-3btc.. imagine the emotions flare if a public exchange put an order in for 300btc. just seeing a order that size on a public exchange order book becomes a 'wall' in which traders then fight against and switch directions

things i can see from the charts

the top chart of the topic shows 2100 addresses of MINIMUM1k coins. meaning WAY MORE than 2.1mcoins are hoarded in 2100 addresses
according to https://btc.com/stats/rich-list ~7mill coins are hoarded in addresses ofmore than 1000coins


separetly the other chart about known exchange holdings only shows 1.2m are hoarded by known exchange addresses
this means out of 7mill coins.. known exchanges are only hoarding under 20% of it

it also reveals many other things
many people are depositing into exchanges but not that many are withdrawing out. just look at the smooth upcurve on the exchange chart.
with only small waves of dips that dont seem to counter the upcurve by much

not true
the amount of utility of multisig is already low. so the benefits are not much. it just turns what would be a 2-2multisig bloated sig sitting in the witness areas appear as just 1 signature. basically bringing down the witness area from about 300kb to maybe 150kb

but what it does not do is do much for the baseblock scaling. paying into a multisig is the same as before. so no advantage of less inputs-outputs

but. with multisigs being used more (predicted) eventually there will be more people in the multisig, which when they finally want to get out will see alot more transactions of
bc1qmultisig 100btc -> bc1qsingleindependantusera 0.1btc
                              -> bc1qsingleindependantuserb 0.1btc
                              -> bc1qsingleindependantuserc 0.1btc
                              -> bc1qsingleindependantuserd 0.1btc
                              -> bc1qsingleindependantusere 0.1btc
                              -> bc1qsingleindependantuserf 0.1btc
                              -> bc1qsingleindependantuserg 0.1btc                            
                              and so on
(contract exits with hundreds of outputs) instead of currnt average of
3multisigtwooftwo 100btc -> 1singleindependantusera 50btc
                                      -> 1singleindependantuserb 50btc

meaning that the base block sees transactions bloat up with multiple output transactions at contract exit than compared to todays scenario which is more just 2ins and 2outs average
the tx data per tx in the base for these higher used multisigs will be higher meaning less transactions per block.
the only appearance of gain is that length and complex scripts wont fill up the witness area to the same extent to cause even worse bloat

in short. if you can imagine a multisig script traditionally being say 3kb of bloat. yes in a legacy multisig that means under 300 transactions can sit in the baseblock with the legacy script.. but only IF there were any real examples of such bloatable scripts.. their werent so we never had that scenario/problem so we generally kept to a average tx count of ~2500

with segwit. the 3kb script sits outside the baseblock meaning 1000 scripts could sit outside the base block meaning only 1000 txdata can be inside the baseblock. thus segwit just mitigate the damage future scripts would cause to prevent transaction DECREASE issues if bloated scripts were added to legacy. thus instead of an average from ~2500 going down to ~300. segwit mitigated the damage to ~1000
which is still bad but not as bad as if legacy handled scripts

which if you do the numbers
with a witnss area filled with 1000 scripts of 3kb is the witness are filled. meaning if that was represented as a 2in 2out tx in baseblock txdata (300byte) is only 300kb inside the base block (30%filled) yes 30% filled base of just 1000tx but cant put more tx data inside the base block because the witness area is at its limit.
(300kb base 3mb witness: 30%fill, 100%fill) thus only as i said 1000 tx in the base

now with schnorr it allows 3kb script to end up being just a single short signature thus mitigating bloated scripts from causing this issue to the witness area. which means more scripts can go in the witness which means it prevents witness bloat from damaging the base block potential. thus bringing the average transaction data that can sit in the base block back to original average levels
but here is the thing...
the big thing people are missing the point of
the base block has always had the potential of upto 4200 transactions per block, averaging ~2500 most of the time of a complete fill

schnorr, segwit are NOT achieving anything that resembles allowing 40x more transactions in the base block by converting 3kb scripts into ~75byte script. instead its to prevent the bloated scripts from hitting witness area limits that would cause UNDER utility of the base block

its not scaling.. its early prevention of de-scaling transaction counts

but when only those using coinjoin are predominently those wanting to do bad stuff. then the stash of coins in the mix is predominetly bad taint

again you might be trying to hide taint of a victimless petty crime, but getting taint of a more nasty crime instead which makes you then have to explain why u got the coins, who from. the purpose. etc.
using money laundering/mixers/coin join does not absolve you from having police knock at your door. you can stil have assets seized. your hardrives taken from you and inspected and asked to be interrogated in police custody.
its like people also think buying btc cheap and at pric rise buying a lambo with it absolves them of paying taxes. sorry but if you on normally $30k a year/modest life but suddenly your spotted with a lambo registered to your address.. you will be looked into as to how u funded the car.

i know this, gmax knows this . its why he went on to try to find ways to get more 'clean' coins from innocent users into the mix and why
some wallets that use coinjoin are trying hard to get innocent people to use it too, to reduce the % of bad taint

imagine it like a underground cafe where people can discuss less favourable things in confidence. patrons attending there are usually higher chance of having done a crime else they wouldnt need to use it. so if a cop went to a regular cafe and the dark cafe and just randomly picked a person from each. i can guarantee you if u investigate hard enough the chances of the dark cafe patron getting arrested for something is much higher. and thy got caught not from the crime itself, but from just being at/using a service known for notorious purposes.

why do you think exchanges, without even knowing if an actual criminal is using an exchange just blacklists coins that have simply gone through a mixer.

what your not seing is these few things
1. in many countries a court only needs a 7 of 12 jury consensus saying guilty.
2. innocent people dont even want the police to knock at the door. definetly dont want to be hand cuffed. dont want to be questioned, have funds seized, computer/devices examined, put on bail and left waiting for months just to see a court date to hope that a judge dismisses the case..
again innocent people dont even want to get to a stage to even want a judge to be standing infront of them.

just being accused of a crime or even just questioned by police is more stress than innocent people would want.

but i do laugh how you think it should be acceptable for normal common folk to be standing infront of a judge to be told by a smart judge that there is no 100% unanimous proof thus dissmiss the case.

and you only need to look at police reports and court documents to see that many many many people who are later found innocent have been put through the legal system and it affecting their life needlessly

thats the point i was making
anyone can choose any date. to get a chart that would differ if the dates were changed.
anyone can draw a line at any start point, end point, and any angle
and then turn it into any story.
EG take the same curvy angle. you can then choose do you tell the hoarders despair story or the new buyers discount after correction story

in the grand scheme of things. its useless information the OP is providing. as there are dozens of variables/stories that could be applied/changed.

all it does it make it appear that the OP APPEARS smart. yet anyone thinking beyond the carefully selected story the OP chose, the opposite can also apply, aswell as, if the date were changed slightly or the angle of the line changed. his whole notion wouldnt apply at all
EG why choose jan 2017
if the OP chose october 17 to oct 19 there would be no take off, no paradigm.

he found a narrative and then searched for dates that matched his story.
problem is there are many stories and many narratives that can be made choosing different dates and line angles

think about lazlo. 2010 he paid 10,000 btc for 2 pizza ($85million at todays value)
yep there is a news report of someone who threw his hard drive away with hundreds of coins on a private key stored in it
even i have a regret story where in 2013 i bought a now defunct asic for 60btc.
asic hardware now worthless but at todays value its $510,000 of btc spent to get it
even satoshi gave hal 10btc($85,000) thinking it was only worth $0.00066 in CPU power usage cost

there are still legal issues and developers are not legal experts. when they throw around the word "fungible" they act as if having a fungible currency is some get out of jail fre card. its not.

let me explain
imagine your a basic protestor and want to reeceive anonymous donations so you can buy placards.
imagin you fear prosecution because insighting a protst in a country was a 30day jailterm and being put on a anarcist watchlist for rest of life
but separetely(ill get tio it later) bing paid to murder somone is life in prison

..
ok now then things like coinjoin need a central co-ordinator that receives funds from multiple people wanting to hide thier actions and redistributes it to multiple people wanting to hide their actions

in short. all the funds coinjoin play with are dogdy for multiple possible crimes

so you (A) want donations from pro-protest donators(a)
so someone else(B) is a hitman getting paid by a person that wants someone dead(b)
without coinjoin transactions look like
(a)->(A)
(b)->(B)

with coinjoin
(a)->(B)
(b)->(A)

so ok no on can see that you are getting paid to be a protestor. but what you dont realise is you received funds from someone that wants someon else killed.

why is this a problem.
well fiat(dollars/pounds) are fungible. yet people get their funds frozen, siezed, investigated. and people do go to jail on evidence like showing they received money to kill someone. same with any currency.

again what you dont realise is trying to hide a petty 30day crime could end up with you getting locked up for life for a bigger crime. such as murder or even for just money laundering by just wanting to be anonymous. sometimes its not the petty crime ur trying to hide that hurts you, but the cover up that ends up hurting you more.

coinjoin main stash of funds are not clean funds. so you have no idea what you could b getting yourself involved in. and if arrested its not a simple 'i dunno' that would be accepted it would be 'you recieved it, you spent it, that makes you an accessory of multiple crimes linked to the funds you received.'and ontop of that we also noticed you then used the funds to protest so lets add that crime ontop too

this is why many exchanges. without even investigating exactly what crime fund origins came from. if the funds show a pattern of being related to a money launder/mixer service. the funds are blacklisted.

here is one big funny thought to think about.
gmax helps develop coinjoin.
gmax also helps develop business tools for crypto and is paid by barry silbert (has portfolio of owning exchanges)

which the exchanges do blacklist mixers
these wallets that take in funds and mix and redistribute want innocent people who just want a cup of coffee to use them. not because a mixer is not a crime. not because there is no law. but its so that those receiving coins to do crimes receive clean coins from innocent people. .. the problem with that is innocent people just wanting to buy a lambo end up getting arrested for being linked to money laundering and paying a hitman even if they had no knowledge that their funds taint went to a hitman

fungible does not mean criminals cant get arrested, fungable does not mean innocent people cant be framed for a crime they did not commit. and mixers mean your atleast going to get in trouble for money laundering.
or at very best. if your not prosecuted for a crime you didnt commit. your still going to have to explain why cops knocked at your door, cuffed you and interviewed you about your innocent lambo and how it was funded.
sometimes just bing questioned by cops or just being put on bail while they decide if theres enough evidence scope to take you to court is more shameful then wanting to hide that you bought a lambo

gotta laugh.

guy sees a chart and starts drawing a red line.
the start point has no fixed reason
the angle has no fixed reason
th end point has no fixed reason

in short anyone can draw any line at any angle

but take this below


here the lines have meaning. the lows of where people refuse to sell below. lets call it the value line
now anything above it is speculation. and if the chart is very very far above the line then that is way over valued bubble area. if the price is near the line then thats good value area.
and thats all people need to know.
the OP thinks his chart shows people in despair recently.. reality is people think its good value and time to buy in

yes there are peaks and dips above value. again thats called speculation and yes there are periods of greed and despair. but that emotional drama doesnt matter as one persons despair is another persons bargain day
if you know where the value line sits below all that drama. you are then able to see the big picture and not get emotional

as for the curvy line meant to show market psychology.. anyone can do that.. but what the OP's curvy line only shows is the hoarders remorse psychology.. heres my hoarders remorse(top) and my new investor(bottom) version


oh.. and by the way. hoarders remorse is not despair near the end. its actually 'well its still higher than i bought in at years ago
for instance. i bought in when btc was $6. so i was still happy at previous years $4K AFTER the $20k correction. yep. i did not despair

the 'faucets' of say 2012-2015 were not really faucets distributing mining rewards. instead what they were was websites with loads of google ads, which google then paid the website owner fiat. the fiat then bought aged/used btc from public exchanges and gave crums out to people
EG if a website owner made $30 a week, he would buy $30 of btc, but only give out maybe at best $15 of btc to its viewers. it was more clickbait than anything. but not distributing fresh block rewards

there is a whole topic that does what you ask. its called the scam accusations topic.
and when you see it you will see hundreds of pages of people pointing out scams and loads of chatter about is it really a scam or not, in many cases alot of times people cannot come to a decision. you will soon learn its not that easy to just list something as a fraud... people have tried

a pack of cigarettes or a pouch of tobacco is worth multiple cups of coffee. i know i know you believe using btc is not worth it for daily life stuff. but thats where you been programmed to think it and its hard to deprogram your thinking that btc is useless. yep you probably dont even want to even romance the thought of btc being actually useful in real life. but the reality is it is useful and should continue to be.

but i am laughing that what was a $2 coffee is too small for utility now being a $15 tobacco is too small for utility.
"quite alot of cigarettes" (facepalm)(sarcastic giggle)

yep good example. gavin back then was doing the give away because he realised not everyone was getting a mined block reward so unable to help debug the code as they had no coin to do tests with. he didnt see it as a 'value' giveaway back then but a technical support initiative to allow more people to use and test the network.
once bitcoin did find a value people started to decide to create a testnet to use to test for debugs before releasing the code into a valuable network so that those testing it could test it without having to 'buy' coins.

dishonestly? how?
in the first 4 years 10.5m coins were created. lets take the first 2 years (5.25m coins) it is said that those who were actually excited to be involved so early on in the first couple years when the coin had no value that they earned their involvement by debugging it and using it for no other reason but wanting to make a robust system
yea yea i know some people think its unfair that satoshi has ~20,000 block rewards he is assumed to have mined in them first couple years (1m coins) but he was so pivotal to the bitcoins genesys and evolution he deserves it. remember back then. the coins had no value so while he was hoarding them they were not worth anything.

as for those later gpu,fpga,asic mining. they put their efforts into what they earned and the value thy got was ~roughly on par with thier efforts. same for those buying it. many were working out how much effort it would have cost to mine it and evaluated its better to mine it. so they too got their coin at fair value.
nothing dishonest about it at all.. thats natural economics one person puts effort into something, another person values those efforts

blocks do not need to contain transactions. so initially people were mining bitcoin with thier home computers CPU at a low hashrate that didnt put much stress on thier computer. the blocks a pc would create was mostly empty of user transactions and only had the block coin reward. after a few weeks people just made transactions to themself or others just for the sake of debugging bitcoin code to make sure it worked. take the transaction from satoshi to hal finney. hal wasnt treating what he received as a 'payment' or income. it was just a proof of concept/function test.

this happened alot, people were accumulating coin but not actually 'spending' them for value. just using them for debugging tests. the first value spend transaction was where someone[initially] jokingly wanted to get some pizza and was just saying how many coins someone would get for the favour. . someone else accepted the challenge. and that made the history of whats now known as 'bitcoin pizza'
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137.0
this set a precedent of 10,000btc for ~$30 of pizza = 1btc=$0.0003 and soon people started to think of making exchanges and price monitors to allow for trading it for value.

the main valuation(not price) was based on how much time/electric wastage it took someone to get a block reward of 50btc. with dozons of people mining. not everyone was getting rewards or not getting them often so instead of mining for 2 weeks just for 50btc some thought, well thats 70 cents of electric it would have cost. so thats 1btc for more than 1 cent if i mined it. so ill make an offer to buy bitcoin

people started wanting to sell stuff for bitcoin. such as alpaca socks and other small gimmicky stuff
(the first big fame usage of coins was to trade value for illegal stuff. where people diidnt want their credit cards directly associated with the items they got(but i wont drag up bitcoins darker part of history. lets just leave that in the past))

when things transitioned to GPU mining. costs of mining went up. with more people involved but still only the ~6 blocks an hour meant there wasnt enough reward for everyone to get a reward regularly. so with higher cost to mine and less chance of a success. buying the coin was cheaper than mining it. .. and this continued to rise and rise. and with people wanting to get coin to buy certain things. buying it seemed easier, faster and cheaper than mining it.

and there we go. natural economic evolution at its best. the rest is history