@AnonyMint, I find a lot of your views make a refreshing change from the Libertarian monotony here, but in this case I wonder if you're making some flawed assumptions with the fundamentals. Unlike Libertarians, I don't see governments as "basically evil because use their coercive powers to coerce unwilling participants into doing things they don't want to do, and the free market is better and more efficient for pretty much everything."
No, I see the situation more like this:
-something will fill a power vacuum no matter what.
-free markets are always overseen by some higher-level entity that makes the rules. There is no "free" free market.
-a lot of the pro-free market propaganda ignores the above. "Competition is more efficient" they say, but they conveniently neglect to mention: "an unregulated market is a type of power vacuum, and a series of mergers and acquisitions will result in a monopoly that becomes a de-facto regulator which, left unchecked, will eliminate innovation in that space."
Astute and agreed. I have tried to explain that to people, and they seem to conflate many issues and can't separate out the orthogonal factors.
Thus you understand why without anonymity, we are just blowing hot air in the wind.
Anonymity is the critical feature of crypto-currency. I explained it here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3934640Bitcoin can't survive as a store-of-value if it is not also providing some needed function, because its store-of-value can be replicated at-will. Etlase2 is correct.
The possible functions a crypto-unit might provide are which might have a Buffetesque moat due to network-effects:
1. Anonymity
2. Decentralized medium-of-exchange.
3. Decentralized ledger of value.
Bitcoin doesn't really have #1 because
your anonymity depends on what the other users do since it is only valid if a process of elimination isn't going to work. Bitcoin doesn't have #2 because
capital gains taxes are due on Bitcoin but not on legal tender, which can be enforced because of lack of #1.
The utility of #3 is pretty much destroyed without #1, due to
net worth tax coming (because current global debt is $150 trillion).
See how everything hinges on #1?
P.S. Many are concerned the government will crack down on an anonymous currency. But think about this. If there is a way to hide assets with very high confidence,
the politicians will rob the government blind and government will collapse faster than the blink of an eye. I think that would be perfect. A very anarchist outcome. Still not think
the Madmax is coming?
Given the above, a lot of the whining I've been hearing about Socialism lately makes me suspicious on 2 levels:
Firstly, political systems around the world cannot and should not be generalised into one-word slogans. It's just silly. The lack of nuance, e.g.: calling Europe "Socialist", makes it meaningless and only useful as propaganda to promote some alternative.
Let me make it more simple. Government is socialist. Period. Here is the Iron Law:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984(that is Eric S Raymond the 150 - 160 IQ genius who wrote Cathedral and the Bazaar which catapulted the open source revolution)
Secondly, I wonder who has the most to lose from the evils of government regulation? The monopolistic corporations! If we follow their history, it often seems to go like this:
-there's a fresh new industry that never existed before, so it's unregulated.
-mergers and acquisitions happen, and now there are only a few players.
-eventually, the government steps in to stop the industry from getting too monopolistic.
-the monopoly cries "Rape! Wolf! Socialism!" to draw attention to their plight.
Wow you are in delusion on that one. The monopolies are never broken up by government. For example the telcom breakup in the USA hasn't worked out, and internet access is slow and overpriced in the USA because the telcoms and cable companies are still operating as a cartel.
The government only pretends to break up cartels. Have you forgotten that all government is in the back pocket of the cartels?
