Considering that (at least according to you) I have been stalking your every post, I haven't seen you propose how to eliminate or counter it yet (yes, I'm aware of this power vacuum, too, and have my own ideas)

CoinCube I appreciate your appreciation, but I would rather you had not tried to promote my highly obtuse articles. This audience is not yet ready.

Meh.. He seems to try to skim the cream off 100+ different fields of study, attempting to make connections between various scientific curiosities and real-world events. While a lot of it seems kind-of coherent, I noticed (while lightly reading/skimming) :

There is already a global wealth tax, its called inflation.

Hmm... I skimmed because I agree with a lot of the beginning so I am clearly missing something 

Could the counterargument be that capital seeking collectivism (i.e. not open source collectivism) requires capital to be immobile and easy to seize, and that we now have systems to keep capital extremely mobile and difficult to seize? I.e. used to be that to have a lot of capital, you either stored it in a bank or property, both of which are difficult to move and easy to seize, while now we can store a lot of capital in digital currencies, and those who own it can't simply have it taken from them, and can easily move around the world undetected if they need to.

If you are arguing that automation will lead to long-term unemployment, I think you are wrong.  Authors have written extensively on this subject since the 1900s (and perhaps earlier).  Many were worried that machines would replace men.  What we have seen is that automation simply results in higher efficiency and unforseen job opportunities on the automation side.  This seems obvious to me, so you must be arguing something else despite what I'm reading here.

This is actually one of your papers, and conclusions, I have a serious issue with. In short, though, to come to the conclusion you propose one would have to assume that all knowledge is priceless, or that all knowledge is worth the same. That's patently false, as the knowledge for how to to brain surgery is vastly more difficult to obtain (even with free information available on the internet) than the knowledge of how to, say, fix a computer, and thus necessarily would demand more reward for applying it. So, I'm fairly confident that someone with low level knowledge skills would still like to convert his knowledge into capital and save it over time, to be able to afford the knowledge skills of someone else who may have more, or even just different, knowledge from them.

Too many long words. Any chance of a summary?

I can't speak for MoonShadow, but for me they seemed like a combination of "difficult to digest" with "mediocre conclusions." Once I managed to process what his words were trying to say, the thing he was actually saying wasn't all that impressive.

I don't deny that he is smart, but he is still out of his depth here.  Really, no one cares what his credentials might be, true or false, only his arguments matter here.  So far, I find his arguments sorely lacking in substance or merit.  His economic writings are bullshit.

Honestly, no one really gives a shit, Anonymint.

You will probably need a week or two of studying the thread slowly.

The government is phasing out cash, as I covered in my prior post.

Now whether anonymity will work reliably and whether the coin can't be shutdown by filtering at the routers controlled by the major governments is technical discussion that will have to wait until the details of such a coin are known.

Devil is in the details. You should not accept a package without opening it to inspect the contents.

CoinCube to the extent that needs to be the case, the collective/government can get funding from the physical economy that can't be anonymous.

I see some ying and yang balance ahead. It will sort itself out. There are no absolutes in the universe.

My effort is targeted at the new virtual economy I see coming, wherein a recent Oxford study predicts 45% of all existing jobs will be replaced with computerization automation by 2033 (the year Martin Armstrong's Pi model and thus I expect the sovereign debt crisis to have ended).

I see we the hitech knowledge workers taking over the world over the next 20 years. That is sufficient time to ramp up the new currency.

So let the government and the masses have their old world economy. They will have plenty of time to fade away slowly and/or adjust and migrate to the new economy.

Government can become privatized. We don't need government for anything, not for roads, not for schools, nothing. I am a minanarchist.

Give me an example of something we need government for and I will explain why I think it can be done better by private enterprise and competition.

Impaler pointed out that the masses conflate the free market with the failure that the masses causes on themselves with hard money and government. The free market is not the problem, rather it is the solution.

Edit: see the new flying car that already has a working prototype.

Bitcoins were distributed by a free market. How can not thinking that the distribution is proper be anything but a criticism of the free market?

They seem socialist-anarchist to me. (To the extent such a thing is possible, anyway.)

Certainly not any harder than it already is. We already have such a currency. The US dollar. And cash businesses get caught hiding income all the time.

If you don't plan on actually spending the money...well then you can probably come up with a perfectly legal tax shelter so that you don't owe taxes on it in the first place.

Doesn't the title of this thread and the first couple lines of the OP make this obvious?