| > What's exciting is that it is the first digital, global money that isn't protected by the proof of violence of the state. You say this as if it was a good thing. But is it? Look at it from the other direction: it's a tremendous optimization. Imagine a world of Bitcoin, where someone comes and proposes: "Look, we can all keep spending almost all of the world's energy production on scaling basic trade, or... we can just agree that I'll beat up anyone not playing ball, and we can put all that energy to productive use - like farming, medicine, construction, entertainment, science". Does it sound like a bad deal now? Also, the only reason there isn't much threats of violence[0] associated with Bitcoin yet is because cryptocurrencies are tiny. Barely anyone in the real economy cares about crypto[1]. If, by some scary miracle of a trickster god, the economy starts caring for real, cryptocurrencies will get quickly integrated into the mainstream by regulatory means - and regulations are backed by proof of violence. And almost everyone will want that, too, because people will be tired of getting robbed or cheated out of their money. You can't correct an act of violence without another act of violence[2]. (It's not even that hard to rein in Bitcoin. All it would take is for the US govt to announce which chain is considered legitimate by them for the purpose of paying taxes, and that the rest is considered counterfeit money.) -- [0] - Criminal activity notwithstanding. [1] - No, noises made by large banks about running their own blockchains isn't caring - it's just exploring new potential areas of growth and profit. [2] - At least if we generalize "violence" enough, to encompass credible threats of violence. If me stealing your money at gunpoint is an act of violence, then so is the court ordering me to give it back under threat of forcing me into prison. |