People who are really concerned about censorship represent a very tiny percentage of the total voters.
This is true if you only take into account the sub-group "Bitcoin users concerned about privacy".
But on one hand, pro-privacy groups are often quite large. For example in several European countries there is a big "pro-cash" movement rejecting credit cards, CDBCs and cash restrictions. They do often not care about BTC, but this is a often much bigger group the pro-privacy Bitcoin group could unite forces with. There are also all these groups against Internet surveillance (e.g. NSA), which have scored several political victories in the past, even if their battles are far from over.
On the other hand, of the Bitcoin users there's a constant trickle-in into pro-privacy ideas. For example, if we take Bitcointalk, I think most people come here for "personal profit" reasons (bounties, investment advice ...), but then the probability that they'll stumble upon pro-privacy content is quite high. The percentage may be lower on other platforms but imo it's never zero - because eventually people read about the word *censorship resistance* and what it means for Bitcoin's potential success. In other words: If you start to think about "why I'm
really investing in BTC?" then you're often on the right path.
Politicians only are pro-Bitcoin when there are elections close? Yes, this is indeed a danger. But politicians promising and never delivering are very likely to be voted off. There are several examples of this. It's a process that can take years and even decades, I'm aware of that of course.
Live your life on your own and forget about political affairs.
I think "forgetting" is dangerous because the situation could become even worse, and some day you wake up and are in a 1984-like scenario. Could you then still "live your life on your own"? China for example is already close to this. I'm not saying every Bitcoiner has to become politically active, but at least trying to educate other, new users about privacy and surveillance risks is not a bad idea. (Addition: Anarchism is also an option, i.e. working towards independence from governments.)
Of course not. I find it delusional for you to say this at this point. If you had said it 4 years ago it would still make sense.
I totally agree that we're still not there - that's why I added the question mark and the second part of the post. But something is starting in recent years. Politicians, or at least the agencies they work with (I don't really think Trump himself is a diehard crypto supporter, for example) are considering crypto users as an important voter group. It's a start of a phase which
could lead to a victory.
About your other concern - that privacy-aware bitcoin users are a minority, and many are treating it like any other financial asset - see my answer to @uneng.
The big firms that will support these politicians financially are owners of these censorship-promoting firms.
I think this "first phase" of "supposed politic support to crypto" we're living today will be directed to the traditional CEX user who doesn't care about KYC, and the support from tech firms is an important issue. So the movement has to happen inside the crypto community, i.e. more people inside the crypto user group have to become privacy aware for that to change, see above.
The crypto space is moving towards centralization, and only a few people know the danger of this move.
I'd say yes and no to that trend. There is a danger of course, but on the other hand there are examples like Monero. Monero has been delisted from several major exchanges, and now they are needing to move towards increased decentralization, after having partly embraced the traditional CEX/profit culture in the recent past. This is an experiment, of course, and we don't know if they'll succeed, but until now it seems they could hold the price and even recover a bit (current price is $143, after the Binance delisting they were close to $100).
Again for most of the remaining of your post I point to the answer I gave to @uneng - I believe the effort inside the Bitcoin community to educate newer users about the importance of censorship resistance is crucial (perhaps even more important than "becoming politically active").
The division among the crypto community is a disadvantage and the "powers that be" will use that disadvantage for sure.
This is an important point. However, I think this division isn't as deep as it is sometimes affirmed. If a "no-coiner" meets a "NFT investor" and a "Bitcoin maximalist" (which should be on the opposite end of the Bitcoin/crypto user spectrum) and attacks cryptocurrency with the usual arguments like "only for criminals", "environmentally harmful", "ponzi" etc., then I believe even those opposed groups will group together. And the "trickling in into the no-KYC/pro-privacy camp" is probably also true for these groups. At least I see often threads of people asking how they can cash out their NFT/altcoin trading profits without having to demonstrate an origin of funds or so, and this is an excellent opportunity to educate them about the benefits of decentralization.
I also think you underestimate the number of active crypto users. Imo it's at least 100 million (even in a small country like Argentina there are about 5-10 million). Some (e.g. a Singapore agency called Triple-A doing crypto user research) say that India alone has almost 100 million, although of course, most of them could be NFT and stablecoin users, but they're still inside the spectrum I'd mentioned in the last paragraph.
