[pron]

But now you're putting a libertarian political agenda into Bitcoin again, and this is what makes many people (including me) very nervous. You see, many people think about the terrible pain and suffering the US experienced about a century ago when the economy and law were largely unregulated and unenforced. Much of the country became quickly enslaved to a small group of individuals; terrible exploitation and rampant poverty ensued. It was through a lot of hard work that Americans were able to place government regulation to free themselves from the tyranny of the robber barons. So when many people today hear the words "without external central entity and enforcement" the horrors of the gilded age flash before their eyes.

Also, your ideas about an AI-directed or general-consensus utopia are nice but naive. People don't usually agree on what utility function you'd want to maximize, as there is no "right way" for a lot of things that matter to people. Would your Bitcoinish utopia allow late-term abortions? Or school prayer? Or same-sex marriage? Politics is a constant battle of values, many of them are deeply emotional.

But Dixon's idea of Bitcoin as internet pocket-money is actually something I can live with.

[waterlesscloud]

There's nothing about what he's saying that precludes the rules of the network being decided by a representative democracy or what have you. Which is part of the beauty of the network.

He's just saying that regulations can be implemented and enforced by the network itself.

Different thing altogether.

[hippich]

I am not trying to put any agenda. It was a mistake to include random idea off top of my head.

My excitement comes not from being able to get free from government, but rather from the fact humanity found a way to agree on complex topic (money) and set these rules in open source software.