Sidenote: The original author of CryptoNote which Monero is based on, Nicolas van Saberhagen, is also an anonymous identity like Satoshi.
This is certainly false; the whole point is to invalidate money transmission laws.
If all the transactions being done wouldn't be forbidden by money transmission laws even if they were transmitting money normally, then the transactions aren't doing anything to negate the effects of the money transmission laws.
On the other hand, if a transaction would go against money transaction laws if it were going by some other method, even if it would currently be legal if done with bitcoin (which I doubt is the case, but even supposing), the money transmission laws could just be amended to also forbid the analogous transactions which use bitcoin instead of whatever other method, therefore then making it a crime.
A plan to invalidate a law by making a technology that fits through a loophole in a law, and hoping the loophole never gets patched, seems, an odd plan.
A plan to make a law practically un-enforceable by making a technology, seems like a more reasonable plan to me, and is also inherently facilitating a crime.
Of course, it wouldn't be desired that it be made illegal, but I think the desire would be that, if possible, even if it was illegal, people would still be successful in attempting to use it.
I don't think so. Satoshi included the headline of bank bailouts in the first block. It's been a decade since I scanned over the whitepaper, but I think it was to create a currency that people couldn't manipulate.
Bitcoin may be censorship resistant, but it is not censorship proof.
Though the singular "they" has been in the English language since something like the 14th century, for the past hundred-and-fifty or so years, some prescriptive grammarians have been advising against it, insisting that it's an error. I is perhaps due to the efforts of these grammarians that "they" has come to be regarded as informal, giving text a colloquial or conversational flavor.
How you can avoid sexism is my sometimes using "he" and sometimes "she" as a meta-variable for some unspecified person (consistently for the same person).
If you make the he:she ratio exactly 50% in your corpus, you're above all accusation of sexism.
I don't like reverse-sexism/racism/etc because adding the term "reverse" doesn't stop it from being sexist/racist/etc itself, but Hacker News guidelines say we should "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."