Why?

You're not seeing the actual details either way.

The blurred version feels honest -- it's not showing you anything more than what has been encoded.

The sharp image feels confusing -- it's showing you a ton of detail that is totally wrong. "Detail" that wasn't in the original, but is just artifacts.

Why would you prefer distracting artifacts over a blurred version?

The details are quite real, and they make the image far more comprehensible.

Get a picture of grass, save it as a JPEG at 15% quality... It still looks like grass. Then run it through jpeg2png... The output looks like a green smear. You might not even be able to tell that it's supposed to be grass. jpeg2png just blurs the hell out of images.

Here's a side-by-side: https://ibb.co/99C0F34d

The details were destroyed long ago by the poor compression, you aren't getting them back either way.

You're talking utter nonsense.

Get a picture of grass, save it as a JPEG at 15% quality... It still looks like grass. Then run it through jpeg2png... The output looks like a green smear. You might not even be able to tell that it's supposed to be grass. jpeg2png just blurs the hell out of images.

Here's a side-by-side: https://ibb.co/99C0F34d