I used to think that Bitcoin transparency was a major benefit to it. However, that opinion has changed after 15 years. Now I see it as an attack vector. For example, I'm currently being attacked with lies and claiming I control addresses that I don't. If people don't have any technical knowledge, they could just choose to believe the lies even though transparency tells the true story. Worse, I have seen only a handful of operations use Bitcoin's transparency. Even the great Saylor won't prove reserves. So what good is transparency if its only use is to attack individuals that the blockchain should prove innocent while few go through the effort of even learning how to read what is shown?
From the bolded part of your post, I could deduce that the problem isn't the transparent network. As you also acknowledged in your post, lack of technical understanding of the bitcoin could be a barrirer.
Some could make false claims or allegations even when the network data itself is very accurate. The major problem here could be the interpretation of the transparent information and not transparency itself.
I've always been for financial privacy and have said that for many years. I've also said it needs to be done at the protocol level instead of 3rd parties that can't be trusted themselves. The goal was that we could Trojan Horse Bitcoin into the financial system and then activate privacy, but when you follow the money you realize the exact opposite is happening. Bitcoin is being Trojan Horsed with sidechains that can be hacked and have funds frozen by 3rd parties.
Wonderful! I haven't been aware of this goal. Was this a pronounced or written goal by satoshi and the OGs, or it's your perspective of the transparent design.
Pretend to be transparent, integrate with the financial system and then activate privacy - a very smart approach. But in the present reality, the goal has failed. I said so because the network is large now and reaching a consensus to activate protocol privacy is not possible when there is xmr and their likes
