[Frondo]

I like your ideas about the colonial aspects of Bitcoin in the developing world. That is an angle I haven't heard anyone else mention before. It pairs nicely with another critique I don't often see, that Bitcoin is undemocratic; there are economic assumptions baked in that, if it were a government-backed money, people could discuss, vote on, and ultimately change. With bitcoin, there is no way that the people whose lives could be affected by those assumptions can have a say in them--the design and operation of bitcoin doesn't answer to the people in a democratic way.

[innguest]

That Bitcoin is undemocratic is a good thing. Look around in the world at what democracy has done to currency. Not a single democratic currency has withstood the test of time. It's time for a different approach.

[Frondo]

I am unable to agree with the statement, "It is time for an undemocratic approach to money".

[innguest]

I want an undemocratic currency and I don't want to forbid you from using a democratic currency if you prefer it. I doubt those that like you, who are unable to agree with the statement above, will willingly extend the same courtesy to those like me, who disagree with that statement.

I wonder which group might be in possession of the right idea, the group saying "you don't have to use it if you don't like it" or the group that is already forcing the new currency to be under the same democratic rules of the old, "democratic" currency.

Statism, ideas so good we have to force them on people.