Uff this good question is one of those questions that you don't know exactly how to answer unless you're imprisoned for confession. Well, the only way governments have to govern us is through the use of force.

I would start by analyzing what is illegitimate, what is right or wrong.

Clearly everything unlawful is everything that is forbidden by the law of a government, but what if I tell you that in Singapore, it is forbidden to chew gum? Mmm... that law is questionable... In most countries, if not almost all, what is not forbidden - I understand this law is to keep the city clean among other things - but is this the right way to determine if something is legal or not?

Obviously I don't hate the law, it's something necessary because there must be order; for example, killing, stealing and all things that are coherently bad should be punished.

As I write this, I realize that perhaps the answer is simple... and well, it also depends on each person's situation, but assuming a generic scenario where you're being pursued for having bought BTC P2P without KYC, and your goal is to provide for your family, I think more than one person would consider your statement "OK, I don't give a damn what you're going to do to me," but on the other hand, it could also happen that you sell out all your acquaintances, losing your fortune along the way because you want to be free from the law, because you want to be with your family, which is also a more than valid option.

"Do you think it would be better to flatly refuse the illegitimate ones?" Well... I think nobody should do it, and I include governments, because all illegitimate actions existed and will exist before or after BTC or CBD, and of course, they have their ways of making them legal. That's why I don't like the term of whether something is legal or not. I think there should be more freedom but always with responsibility and human coherence.

So, answering the question simply, it's likely that I don't have that answer unless I'm locked up, and we all know that for our loved ones, we would endure hell to see them happy or would sell out the entire world just to be with them.

₿

If it were the physical world it would be self-censorship and you would be right but being the world divided in 2 between the digital and the physical 1 single person can have more than one nick and do several things such as the work of awakening more people. But it is true that every day that dividing line of this world is getting smaller and smaller, therefore those who do this work at higher levels of risk have to take precautions.

I like to see this ''self-censorship'' as privacy more than anything else (which is totally different from anonymity ), to make known the benefits of bitcoin only to people you decide you trust and obviously not tell big brother that you use this technology 😉.

Thank you very much @User21000000

Thank you very much @BlokchainB I find this platform extremely interesting