[jcbrand]

Uhuh... and if the state, with its monopoly on violence, wishes to ban these currencies?

They can try, but it's very difficult to do. I hear we'll win the war on drugs any day now.

All the problems are social, not technological

No solution is 100% social or technological, you need both. The existence of cryptocurrencies doesn't remove the need for social coordination.

[mjburgess]

Right, but you realise that a system in which the handful of early-stakers have all of the power; and in which no change or revision is possible; and in which blackmail & abuse of key-holders is necessitated to obtain their funds; and in which there is no economy of the currency to provide a grounding in value; and in which therefore it is the late-stakers who provide liquidiy to the early feudal lords... and in which ...

Is a worse situation, right?

Crypto is just fedualism with land=coin. Really. That's what it is.

It's about as anti-freedom as one can imagine. It's "freedom in form" and not in content. It's the freedom of the colonizer on new land, and the oppression of all else who live there. A necessary oppression, not open to revision, and executed by machine.

[jcbrand]

The issuance of Bitcoin is about as fair as one could hope for, for a non-state currency.

Satoshi advertised the currency and the start of mining beforehand, to give other people a chance to participate. There was no pre-mine.

In the early days there were faucets that handed out bitcoins for free.

Due to the boom and bust cycle of Bitcoin, many of the early holders cashed out instead of holding all the way to untold wealth. This is actually a nice side-effect of the early stages of Bitcoin adoption.

Very early holders of Bitcoin had to take the risk that the currency was somehow flawed and would go to zero, in some sense, the gains they made are a function of the risk they took.

The solution to wealth inequality is not to force everything to be equal, it's to allow both upward and downward mobility. The wealthy must be allowed to fail and not be bailed out.

Interestingly, bailouts are a common feature of the fiat monetary system.

[mjburgess]

I believe it's estimated c. 10 individuals own c. 50% of Ethereum.

A deflationary asset, like land for example, is not a good currency. As a powerbase, it's called feudalism. And that's not a good politics.

Power in crypto is radically centralised to the owners, not the users (unlike democracies).

One has to imagine people like you know this, or feel it, in the lust for the value increases to your own stake: that is, a lust that you are the one in control. Either way, you're playing the role of a daemon here, whether you realise it or not.

And the devil you are putting on the thrown are a handful of billionaires with power and control executed by a machine.

Thankfully bitcoin has no army, and all of this will fade into the obvious malicious stupidity it already is.

[jcbrand]

I believe it's estimated c. 10 individuals own c. 50% of Ethereum.

I wrote about Bitcoin, not Ethereum. There are lots of Bitcoiners that think Ethereum is a scam due to the large premine and larping as a decentralized project.

Either way, you're playing the role of a daemon here, whether you realise it or not.

And the devil you are putting on the thrown are a handful of billionaires with power and control executed by a machine.

The fact that you have to start using flowery religious language of condemnation appears to me an indication that you're running out of logical arguments.

Thankfully bitcoin has no army

That's one of its features, which proponents value.