[spiffydave]

I think your argument is a very nice strawman. No one is endorsing an "anarcho capitalistic system" here.

What we're saying is that having an alternative to fiat is some people's only hope when the government can close your accounts, inflate the currency, etc.

[danmaz74]

A world where governments aren't able to forcibly close, and more importantly, impound your bank accounts even if you're the head of a Mafia family, or a corporation doing something that the law deems a corporation shouldn't do, looks to me like a very serious step towards anarcho capitalism - which, by the way, is the stated goal of not so few cryptocurrency fundamentalists.

[ajkdhcb2]

It's already like that, and it always has been. The most powerful people have immense power because they are inside governments or have corrupted them. At a level below that, they have funds in hidden offshore shell accounts, accounts under other people's names, physical assets.

Further, like encryption, cryptocurrencies are not something that you can ban in an effective way no matter how desperately you want to, so you will just have to deal with it.

The most powerful people will always have privacy and be above laws. The only way you can equalise it is to give some of those abilities to the little people

[danmaz74]

This is exactly where we disagree. Imho giving more and more people an easy way to undermine democracy and rule of law will result in the richer having even more power than now, and the little guys with even less recourse than now.

[ajkdhcb2]

I don't understand how you can look at the mafia, cartels, China and Russia then say that. No matter what you do, there is NO recourse or transparency AT ALL for those corrupt people in power. The little guy is completely powerless. Cash is becoming phased out. Central Bank Digital Currencies are coming. China already shows that the government can cut people off from life and give you time limits to spend your digital money. I find it impossible to understand your point of view