> If we trust the system that pulls the wool over our eyes, should we really trust it? Blanket statements don't really help to determine if a given set of regu

> If we trust the system that pulls the wool over our eyes, should we really trust it? Blanket statements don't really help to determine if a given set of regulation is useful or not. The system has a lot of bad parts and regulatory capture is a thing, but that does not imply that literally all regulation is poor and need to be ignored. If one wants to make a statement with regards to any set of regulation, it needs to be specific and fact-based; simply issuing blanket statements is useless at best and dishonest at worst. > A transparent financial blockchain is the core difference in philosophy between backroom decisions made on our behalf supposedly with our best intentions in mind by non-elected appointed people and a mathematical equation that we can all see and test. Math we can all trust because it is true at it's core, can we do the same for people? This is pretty much nonsense. The statements you are making here are so abstract and broad that they defy any sort of reasonable analysis. You can consider the Bitcoin algorithm as a mathmatical equation, but that says nothing about whether you can trust the individual entities utilizing Bitcoin. You can't reduce all interactions between people to algorithms, so at some point you're going to have to have rules and norms in place, which will ultimately be decided on by people in some manner. Furthermore, whether the system is encoded as an algorithm (what you're calling math here) is orthogonal to whether it is doing the correct or optimal thing. The "trust in math" line espoused by Bitcoin advocates does not have the effect they think; it simply makes them appear dogmatic and cultish. Saying that something is math and therefor trustable and unassailable is rather short-sighted. > Yes some payment processors can be shady, but so can some fed officials who are incharge with our entire financial system. The existence of shady fed officials has no bearing whatsoever on whether a specific set of rules are good or necessary from a societal standpoint. Its a completely separate discussion. On the other hand, the fact that some payment processors are shady is relevant to the discussion of whether the rules are necessary. Ultimately, your entire argument is an emotional appeal here. You'd do better to set aside the rhetoric.