On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Joerg Platzer <joerg@???> wrote:
>
> of course Bitcoin _is_ anarchism as it has no leader as long as we don't
> designate one and change the protocol in ways that allow to control it and
> hand that over to the leader.
>

There is the problem. The Bitcoin Foundation's will spend $17 million USD
to become that "benevolent leader".


> These people are screaming for government regulation in order to save me
> from identity theft through Bitcoin. They wish to protect me and 'de-risk'
> Bitcoin.


Ye gods, save us from those who have "our best interests" in mind!

Math provides certainty in lieu of placing trust in people calling for
government regulation. A correctly implemented bitcoin system doesn't need
trust.


> The most hilarious statement is that the reason for banks not getting
> involved is that they are scared to have to go to jail. As if one banker
> ever was sent to jail.
>

A few<http://www.businessinsider.com/the-decades-10-biggest-financial-crimes-2009-12?op=1>did,
not nearly
enough <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/financial-crimes>. You couldn't
swing a dead cat on Wall St. without hitting a white-collar criminal.

Financial freedom is hammered into the code in a much more resiliant way
> than anything ever written in stone and with financial freedom comes the
> rest.
>

Semantically, I don't agree, in that there is no centralized "code" because
of bitcoin's P2P specification. If the bitcoin system continues to adhere
to the specification, I *think* it will remain free. Amir has passionately
argued that "bitcoin is not a fixed thing". I don't know enough about
bitcoin to be certain either way.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that as long as the
block chain and anonymity is kept as is in the bitcoin system, it is free
from corruption, correct?

I propose the following bitcoin acid test: If you can buy acid with it, it
is bitcoin.

John