I wish you wouldn't capitalize "government". 

Other than that, I think it could use a bit more emphasis on the fact that bitcoin could make banks totally obsolete, except for risk-takers who hold interest-bearing accounts.

The problem for anyone who isn't a libertarian (or at least a classical liberal) is that if bitcoin succeeds, governments will not longer have central banking and debt financing at their disposal. Without that, they have only taxation. But they would need a tax rate approaching 100% to fund anything close to their current activities, and that's not likely to be very successful. The bitcoin-driven black market would crush the tax-laden "white market". So all their wars and social programs are going bye-bye. Bitcoin may not produce a stateless society, but it sure as hell would destroy the modern warfare/welfare state.

I wonder if there will ever be an "I am Spartacus" moment where the government tries to find Satoshi and thousands of people claim to be him. I would do it for the lulz.

What if I were to email my wallet to myself with PGP encryption? That way it exists on my email server in case all my hardware goes boink. But would it be secure enough with PGP?

They are good points. And actually, I see a much greater likelihood of resistance from security statist and pro-military conservatives than from liberals of any stripe (other than die-hard Krugmanites, but they're a very small minority).

Also, this should have been in the original post.

What do you mean by "you conservatives"? Might it be that there is a political philosophy that consistently opposes ALL government violence against peaceful people, which would attract the same sort of people who are interested in depoliticizing money? Hmm...

...I should have known.

That's not a fallacy, unless you have a few billion solar-powered robots sitting around somewhere.

That's really hilarious. I'm not even going to bother refuting it, because the fallacy is so obvious that to believe that you must have left plain logic far behind, which would render any argument pointless. Next you'll be telling me that wars stimulate the economy.

Not just ridiculous; it's frankly insane.

Also, I find it hilarious (in the archaic sense of the word) that supposed "liberals", those wonderful paragons of compassion and peace, think that wars are just dandy whenever it's one of their guys running them. The "Good War" is a progressive myth that was only recently adopted by neoconservatives, which are basically progressives who are more honest about their attitude towards foreign policy.

True, but to get the most productive use out of any given resource of any given amount requires a highly advanced division of labor, and more creativity and productive labor rather than less. I don't believe for a second that we have obtained the greatest possible yield of food from a cubic meter of soil. More people, not less, will have to look at that soil before we figure out how to get there.

The problem is that there tends to be more people where the capital necessary for technological development is lacking, and people with more capital tend to spend it on consumption and decrease the rate of their population growth. The solution isn't to control population; it is to (1) free the third world from their parasitic states which inhibit the accumulation of the capital which is the foundation of technological development; and (2) end the political paradigm in the first world which encourages consumerism through cheap credit and debt-financing.

Which brings us around to bitcoin, which may have a significant role to play in both.

That's true, but only to some extent. More people also means a more advanced division of labor, as well as more creativity and productive potential.

So? It still sucks. A revolution is nothing more than a change of power from one set of power-hungry thugs to a different set of power-hungry thugs. It's time for something different. And since we humans are not dependent on evolution, there's absolutely no reason why we should wait around for it.


Utilitarianism does fine for dictators. Not for me. Utilitarianism says "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet". I say "human beings are not eggs, you effing psychopath."


Now THAT is what is unlikely. All any mob will ever do is put another group of violent sociopaths in power. My goal isn't to give different groups of people turns at mass murder. My goal is to do away with instruments of mass murder. I realize that won't happen spontaneously, or even soon. But we will NEVER see the emergence of a truly civilized society if we keep trying to form it by means that oppose it. You can't kill your way to peace; you can't tax your way to prosperity; you can't legislate your way to freedom.

No individual terrorist was ever as destructive as the wars waged by states. And states are the distillate essence of mob mentality.


Perhaps it's time for violent revolution to be eclipsed by peaceful evolution.

Just because mobs have accomplished things in the past which we may describe as "better" than the conditions they overthrew doesn't mean that it was the best possible outcome. Imagine if the American colonists, for example, had stuck to a strict policy of sniping from the woods instead of following good ol' Generalissimo Washington into muzzle-to-muzzle combat culminating in mobs charging at each other across open field.

The mob mentality is a reversion into savagery.

You are mistaken if you believe that the mob is anything new. In fact, it preexists human society. Reason evolved away from it, not into it. Try again.

Just because something evolved doesn't mean it's good. Chickens evolved from dinosaurs. According to you, that makes them superior. But I'm eating a chicken right now. It is human reason - something notably absent from a mob - which has enabled me to do so. Really, I used to think that Ayn Rand was full of it when she wrote villains who saw the mind as a step backwards for the human race. In light of this conversation, I stand corrected.

O rly? Try observing a mob in action some time. Observe football hooligans, panicked crowds, political rallies. Individuals by themselves are simply not capable of the manically destructive behavior of groups. It's basic sociology - the intelligence and sensibility of a group tends towards the lowest common denominator. One can only say that a mob is superior to an individual if one believes that the only way to get things done is to break things and kill people. And if you believe that, then you're a freaking psychopath and I don't believe you're worth arguing with.

In those cases, I refuse to play at all.

This is just plain bullshit.

Go break your own windows and see how rich you get. Leave mine alone, thanks.

GDP doesn't measure wealth.

You can make GDP look good by routinely demolishing cities and rebuilding them without a war. War is just the excuse.