Thought provoking, I mostly agree with the following caveats:<p>I see the complete transparency of Bitcoin as a strength, it is certainly an antidote to the opacity of offshore &#x2F; shell companies &amp; tax dodging.<p>[2] &amp; [3] they can&#x27;t prevent payment using Bitcoins but one could be arrested after the fact and detained without computer access.<p>[3] This is why I said civil disobedience for [3]. Bitcoins are a public act.<p>National Currencies like sterling are not implicity bad and actual cash notes can be used for [2] but electronically Sterling et al. lack a lot of freedom.<p>[4] could be fees which currently dissallow national currency micro transactions, which have great utility for instance in a post advertising models &amp; the micro-services revolution to come.<p>Snarky to say &#x27;crypto-anarchist dream&#x27;, crypto means something other than an abbreviation for cryptography in that context e.g. crypto-fascism - which many fear democracies are secretly becoming.<p>Bitcoin is not a dream it is a working implementation, usefully used daily.<p>With Open Bazaar now running, a free global market is enabled - without freedom markets are unfair and not proper capitalism. Adam Smith best points out the issues with crony capitalism &amp; regulatory monopolies.<p>Bitcoin seems like healthy competition to me, national money is overly regulated in some ways and under regulated in others. Arguably to the benefit of the rich and powerful as most governments seem weak in the face of corruption by lobbying these days. Electronic (national currency) transactions are innefficient &amp; overly costly, Bitcoin profoundly highlights this.<p>[1] Bitcoin is provably safe, the safety of ones possessions and computer is the current issue of the day. The UK &amp; US government are promoting breaking encryption and making everyone unsafe.<p>It is good to have alternatives to help ensure regulatory over-reach can&#x27;t happen as easily as it recently has.