Another way to look at it is, what was the goal of the Bitcoin experiment?

a. To create a new network for digital financial transactions? This seems to be what Fred Wilson is writing about, and I agree with him that the jury is still out.

b. To create a distributed currency free from government bureaucracy? Bitcoin seems well-separated from the U.S. federal government, but lately it also seems like Bitcoin has organically sprouted its own messy government bureaucracy.

> Bitcoin seems well-separated from the U.S. federal government, but lately it also seems like Bitcoin has organically sprouted its own messy government bureaucracy.

Bitcoin, nor its tokenholders, cheerleaders, etc. do not have the violence-backed power to tax. So while it may have the nasty trappings of a bureaucracy, I don't think it sinks to the level of a government bureaucracy.

That's damning with faint praise, if the best thing you can say about the Bitcoin community is that at least it hasn't monopolized its capacity for violence.

Nah. People need to learn that you simply can't build a decentralized, egalitarian system on capitalist foundations.

Has anyone built a decentralized, egalitarian system on any foundation? Call be cynical but at some point you run into human nature, and we're not fundamentally decentralising or egalitarian.

Non sense. It is not necessary for the agents in a decentralised system to be selfless in order for the system to self organise.

Edit. Drunk and offensive. But my point still stands.

This is super nitpicky but it's "Bitcoin" when referring to the currency (e.g. "the Bitcoin blockchain") and "bitcoin" when referring to an amount ("0.2 bitcoin"); it's never "BitCoin".

I see, thank you.