> The "philosophical" motivation You misunderstand. If I develop a technology because I want society to be able survive a nuclear attack by making a robust ne

> The "philosophical" motivation You misunderstand. If I develop a technology because I want society to be able survive a nuclear attack by making a robust network that has extra effects like enabling instant communication between disparate entities, that is a benefit. If I develop a technology that replaces in-place infrastructure like school buildings with nuclear-proof bomb shelters at great cost and by removing the schools and making children homeschool because I think that any ill-effects caused by disrupting society are worth it in order to safeguard humanity from a nuclear attack that I believe is coming -- well that all depends on whether I am right about my founding belief, isn't it? If there is no nuclear attack and we lose critical infrastructure because I had a political, unprovable belief, then we seriously messed up. I think you know that what the difference is between ancillary benefits because of planning and destructive effects because 'the ends justify the means' especially when the 'ends' ever happening are highly disputed and the 'means' haven't even been proven to work in any sense at all to produce them. > So you're arguing that consolidating power by removing it from the masses is a better alternative? It's not that distributing power solves problems, it's that distributing power is a necessary precursor to solving problems. You apparently disagree with that premise? You are better than this. Please don't disrespect your position by relying on loaded questions and strawmen. What I am arguing for is not disrupting existing power structures that society relies on because you think it would be better off without them and that they are unfair. Especially when your replacement is unproven and it seems reasonable and sounds good on paper until you play it through logically and see that it ignores basic tenets of established processes of modern societies -- like we need to be able for a world-wide payment system to be able to scale and not destroy the planet and eat up a large portion of our energy resources if and when it is trying to do so. > I said that it may have critical flaws not that it does. I misread you then, but that is probably because I contend that it does. > I believe Bitcoin has a solid foundation You have every right to believe that, and I have every right to tell you that you are wrong and that the debate is only between people who want Bitcoin to be a solution to something it cannot do (fix inequality or really anything that it is advocated for), people who want to use Bitcoin to redistribute wealth to themselves and their friends, and people who want the former group to snap out of it and use their effort to work on productive solutions and for the latter group to be investigated for crimes and if found guilty sent to prison. > The fact that dogma is associated with it is kind of irrelevant. Not when you come to terms with the fact that looking for evidence for something you already believe and discarding that which does not fit is something that is extremely harmful to society and prevented and reverted progress for unknown generations of people as evidenced by the dark ages in Europe and the regression of the middle East from world leaders in sciences and technology to war-torn wastelands. > Bitcoin was a specific and evolutionary response Evolution does not mean better -- it means more effective. Capitalism is about distributing resources from the ground to production to consumption and conversion into capital. Moving capital from people with little power to people with more power is actually more efficient when you remove regulations and societal prohibitions on deception, fraud, and usury. Bitcoin is great at that.