Read the Bitcoin paper: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf It does not, at any point in there, say that the benefit is to avoid s

Read the Bitcoin paper: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf It does not, at any point in there, say that the benefit is to avoid state control. It talks about how the cost of requiring a third party in transactions discourages microtransactions, for instance (there are other touted benefits as well). But it's not an anarchist manifesto. And all of the benefits of Bitcoin listed in the original paper require it to be a useful medium of exchange. The Bitcoin paper posits that it should be useful for transactions _much smaller_ than a cup of coffee. It isn't. It so obviously isn't that even Bitcoin advocates can admit that. Okay, so maybe you think that it's okay that Bitcoin doesn't meet its original goals given that it meets these other goals. But the goals you state, the lack of state control and the difficulty of seizure, are... like, Bitcoin does not put you the person outside of the state's law enforcement mechanisms, including the taxation people. Ironically, if Bitcoin was actually useful for small microtransactions, like the paper says it should be, that might actually be useful for avoiding state control. It's not! And nothing about Bitcoins makes them hard to seize if you are within the physical jurisdiction of the state.