If you are referring here to human nature, I don't think it can be changed or will change any time soon. Neither do I think that it's worth trying to change it because what we already have by now (in regard to our nature) isn't that bad really. I'd rather go for a step-by-step change of the existing system and evolving it into something else than total demolition or dismatling. And this most likely wouldn't be anarchy as it is drawn here..

I never said that state would not be engaging in compulsion and coercion. These "features" are inherent to it, that's what makes such an institution a state. My point, actually, boils down to two things which I expand on in detail below

Firstly, state is just a somewhat embellished form of exploitation and expropriation that one small group of people promotes towards the rest of population. Why that group of people would ultimately have to restrain themselves from looting the population, I had explained in my posts before

Secondly, states evolved naturally from the initial condition very close to what you call here anarchy. Because of the universal character of this phenomenon throughout the world, I find it very dubious that anything like anarchy has even a remote chance of materialization or persistence in reality

Если мне не изменяет память, то всё зависит от того, по какому курсу вы покупаете-продаёте валюту. Если курс при покупке выше курса ЦБ, действующего на тот момент времени, а при продаже, соответственно, ниже, то никаких налогов с курсовой разницы платить не надо (даже какая-то статья вроде есть в НК). Очевидно, что ни один обменник или банк в здравом уме не будет продавать валюту ниже текущего курса, а покупать выше, поэтому вопрос в подавляющем большинстве случаев отпадает сам собой. Даже если курс резко меняется, то менялы, как правило, тупо раздвигают ноги спред в свою пользу...

Very long, since ancient times indeed. But gold has qualities that are valued by most people throughout the world. Does bitcoin have that level of appeal, glamor and magnetism that would attract to it as many people even without being a legal tender?

Though I agree with what your post on the whole, just a warning. When making comparisons, check what you are comparing against. Sierra Leone is among the top ten diamond producing nations and a major producer of gem-quality diamonds, also rich in other minerals. Thus being rich in natural resources doesn't guarantee the country can't be impoverished...

Yes, but bitcoin is not legal tender unlike money in the monetary systems you described in your post, so its life may actually turn out to be very short. Why should a government which money system lasted for more than a century give in?

As far as economics is concerned, nothing has value in itself and by itself. Value is not established by some inherent quality of the good (intrinsic theory of value, abandoned) or amount of labor required to produce it (labor theory of value, abandoned), but is determined by the importance an individual places on it for the achievement of his ends. The latter refers to the subjective theory of value accepted by most economic schools of today

And stop cross-posting...

So what's incorrect about my point exactly? It has been pretty well known (or rather obvious) since the end of the war that Russia grabbed these small islands in order to establish their control over the strait. In fact, Stalin at first was planning to occupy the whole island of Hokkaido

Please clarify what I got wrong...

At a friend's party I won't be in my own right by definition, so this example is not worth considering at all in the first place. Whatever answer I may give, I will be either logically wrong (correct answer with false reasoning) or factually wrong (correct logic based on false premises). Choose a better example...

Could I expect you throwing some light on what you meant by the state being involuntary and anarchism being voluntary?

I just paraphrase what others are saying here. But what you say has also been described somewhere earlier in the thread. What if I just don't want to pick up any of the "law providers"? If I don't choose any, would I be outlawed? If not, then it simply doesn't make any sense to choose any "law provider"...

I don't quite understand what you mean here by the state being involuntary and anarchism being voluntary. If you point is that the minority would walk away somewhere if they disagree with the majority, I don't think this relocation will be by their free will and on their accord. Actually, they will be coerced to do so by the majority. It happens daily in life even without state and its laws. But exactly the introduction of state in the form of the law allows to break this otherwise circular argument...

Actually, read that article from which you quoted, the subjective theory of value does explain it in a simple and coherent way. Or, if you have time, read Carl Menger's Principles of Economics (it is not big), the book which gave rise to that theory... Water as well as air (and anything for that matter), they all have subjective value (if you're drowning the subjective value of water will be negative to you), that book explains such things pretty well...

Why should I adjust, or rather, why minority should adjust in the first place? If we have to, then it is not much different from what state actually does. Are you still missing my point?

Look, you seem to be contradicting yourself here. At first you said that "either they or you must adjust". Maybe, now you are going to argue that anything you do against your will, you do voluntarily? I always thought it is called coercion when you have to do something without your own accord. Should I quote the definition of the word you posted earlier or you can take a look yourself?

What you (they) name here as objective value is called price... I intentionally asked you what you meant by objective value. Your answer was that objective value is "the unit of measure is objectively valuable. Like gold, or joules of work"...

The theory you are referring to here is correctly called subjective theory of value. And nowadays it is accepted by most mainstream schools of economics. Actually, I meant exactly this theory when I wrote in reply to your post that there is no objective value in modern economics...

Так вроде ж договорились, что на обратной стороне Луны будут строить... Я что-то упустил?

I have already explained everything in one of my earlier posts. Also, you said it yourself that if my beliefs clash with other people's, either they or I must adjust, so there is still no room for voluntary change if that was your point. When you have to adjust to something against your will, this is coercion under any name...

There is no place for objective value in modern economics in the sense you mean here. The theories claiming otherwise (for example, labor theory of value or intrinsic theory of value) have been abandoned by most economists for not being able to correctly describe real life economic phenomena...

Ok, let's start again. A currency in the gold standard is backed up by gold, right? Gold has some value, but this value is subjective in nature as well as for all other goods. This means that it is not determined by some property of gold (or amount of labor required to produce it, for that matter), but is determined by the importance an individual places on it for the achievement of his aims. Without this subjective valuation shared by the majority of people gold would be worth next to nothing. Now, if you agree that security of Bitcoin has value in the eyes of the individual as it does, you inevitably come with logical necessity to the conclusion that security IS backing up Bitcoin. Actually, anything inherent to a store of value that has subjective value will be backing it up, and the more people share this attitude, the more strength the store of value gets

It's a pity really that you went on a path of obfuscating and confusing matters here...