I'm a bitcoin maxi. > there is nothing “good” about this. There totally is, but the good is only apparent to people with the perspective of most of our ances

I'm a bitcoin maxi. > there is nothing “good” about this. There totally is, but the good is only apparent to people with the perspective of most of our ancestors. Nixon took us off the gold standard in 71', and yet he lied at the time and said it was 'temporary'. Why was that? We grew up in school being told that the gold standard was a janky old technology that failed leading to the great depression. If that's true, why did we stay on the gold standard until 1971 and why did Nixon lie when he took us off of it? All of history, property rights have been workable only with armies to enforce them. And what inevitably happens is that the armies will end up stealing from the people whose property rights they are ostensibly protecting. The existence of property that, in the hands of a skilled user, _cannot_ be stolen, is, indeed revolutionary. I agree that this system is far too complex for most people. Most people will probably just end up using federated chaumian mints. "All" they will get is the benefit of a currency that doesn't depreciate, year after year, and the resulting cultural shift that arises when people don't need to participate in complex mechanisms they don't understand, just to save for the future. I think we are likely to see the rise of a technobrahmin class that understands both crypography and ML, and uses this knowledge in the service of tiny micro-tribes of people they grew up with. Civilization has long required specialization, and i think we're about to see a migration of 'trusted information authorities' from places like the New York Times, all the way down the social hierarchy to, 'a guy i went to grade school with that i know is honest'.