[scintill76]

It seems trollish to define "permission" by whether a system allows its own rules to be broken. I'd argue there can be no such systems because it's contradictory, so saying Bitcoin is not such a system is meaningless.

I'll grant you that Bitcoin requires more "permission" than "none", in the form of licenses and tax reporting in many usecases, as well as technical things like nobody having guaranteed permission to have their transaction processed (even if it follows all published rules.)

The rules are published in open-source code, and you don't have to "sign up" to submit transactions or follow the blockchain, or contract with any entity exclusively in control of the network. Maybe we're not adequately describing the unique quality, but it seems obvious to me that there's a big qualitative difference between e.g., Bitcoin and ACH. You can say it's not worth-it, useful, or interesting in your opinion, but what other financial system publishes all nominal rules and is governed by a self-regulating network that is 99% likely to let anyone do anything permitted by said rules?

I may also be overly optimistic about how long consensus will last, or how "fair" the system is in practice. Still, over the last few years, I'd say Bitcoin has been a uniquely open financial system.