Hmm… taking your question at face value. Can you be more specific?
Is there value in nonreversibility? No, that "feature" has negative value, and it's the reason people trust credit cards.
Value in anonymity? Not at this scale, no. On net that feature just is not workable in a society built on anything other than libertarian-anarchy. And most people actually want a structured society, not fiefdoms.
Take KYC and AML laws, for example. What percentage of people do you think would say we should abolish them, if you explain what they are, and what they are for.
Open Source? The functioning of our traditional economy is pretty open in its working. It's complex, yes. But you are welcome to understand it, and participate in the process.
The "code" that the economy works on is legal code. I think where I disagree with you is that computer code is inherently more suitable. I say that as a professional programmer, who's been programming for decades.
Here's the thing: "The programs" was never the problem.
I can illustrate this best with smart contracts. They're a solution to a non-problem, while making the actual problem much worse. Contract disputes mainly come from disagreements about what the contract means, and errors in codifying intention as text.
Ability to enforce was never the biggest problem. Never. And by forcing the enforcement by using a smart contract it's actually making the problem worse, where "that's not what I meant". Yes, the default action in a real contract, without contextual evidence, is to take the wording of a contract literally (and oxford commas matter). But if there is other evidence, then yes a court will take that into account. Do you not want that? Do you honestly want a maliciously injected underhanded bug in a contract to be enforced, with no recourse?
I think the problem with your question is that people who ask it don't actually know what they're asking.
In the libertarian-anarchist utopia based on this infrastructure the enforcement methods are beyond the reach of the police. So what do you do when someone robs you? When someone uses a bug in a smart contract to take your house?
Just as a reminder (from someone who admittedly knows little about cryptocurrencies aside from this): BTC and other cryptocurrencies are not anonymous. They are, at the most, pseudonymous, and because of their very nature, the trail linking whatever online identity you used to make the transaction lives forever on the blockchain.
I'm here talking about the goals, not the implementation. So what you're saying is a bit off topic. But yes some cryptocurrencies actually are anonymous, as I understand it. E.g. Monero.
Is there value in nonreversibility? No, that "feature" has negative value, and it's the reason people trust credit cards.
Value in anonymity? Not at this scale, no. On net that feature just is not workable in a society built on anything other than libertarian-anarchy. And most people actually want a structured society, not fiefdoms.
Take KYC and AML laws, for example. What percentage of people do you think would say we should abolish them, if you explain what they are, and what they are for.
Open Source? The functioning of our traditional economy is pretty open in its working. It's complex, yes. But you are welcome to understand it, and participate in the process.
The "code" that the economy works on is legal code. I think where I disagree with you is that computer code is inherently more suitable. I say that as a professional programmer, who's been programming for decades.
Here's the thing: "The programs" was never the problem.
I can illustrate this best with smart contracts. They're a solution to a non-problem, while making the actual problem much worse. Contract disputes mainly come from disagreements about what the contract means, and errors in codifying intention as text.
Ability to enforce was never the biggest problem. Never. And by forcing the enforcement by using a smart contract it's actually making the problem worse, where "that's not what I meant". Yes, the default action in a real contract, without contextual evidence, is to take the wording of a contract literally (and oxford commas matter). But if there is other evidence, then yes a court will take that into account. Do you not want that? Do you honestly want a maliciously injected underhanded bug in a contract to be enforced, with no recourse?
I think the problem with your question is that people who ask it don't actually know what they're asking.
In the libertarian-anarchist utopia based on this infrastructure the enforcement methods are beyond the reach of the police. So what do you do when someone robs you? When someone uses a bug in a smart contract to take your house?