Your prejudice against all things centralised or structured "top down" (aka: weasel words for social structures that you emotionally dislike), fits right in with the 'myopic' Libertarian euphoria surrounding Bitcoin... in 2011 - 2012. In defence of the Libertarians here, most seem to have quite moderate views in advocating "small" governments and seeing their ideology as a "guiding principle" rather than a hard set of rules.


That's BS. Central control implies a cohesive group of vested interests -- much more dangerous to legacy financial systems than a disorganised collective of FOSS enthusiasts. One could even argue that as a distributed/decentralised platform, Bitcoin was a) too new/experimental/immature to compete with anything, b) allowed to naturally mature and become more hierarchical in precisely your favourite way: chaotic simulated annealing. It's too bad that you don't like the results-to-date of that unregulated self-structuring.




Your fears seem pathological, and you seem to misunderstand several things about the nature of money (but that's OK, so do most people).

Re: the $150T bubble collapsing?
Not gonna happen unless levels of mutual distrust in society reach a crisis point. Look up the causes of hyperinflation. There doesn't even need to be an increase in the money supply -- hyperinflation is fundamentally a runaway collapse in the amount of trust the average person has in the underlying system. Look around! Bitcoin had its own mini bout of hyperinflation just the other day -- yet the inflation policy has never changed.

You've opined about the hockey stick shape of US reserve printing. There are many ways in which it could be interpreted, e.g.:
-2008 was the start of currency war in which the US tried to steal from the EU with overpriced dollars. Since exchange rates are laggy, there's a first-mover advantage for currency debasement and the US broke the stalemate by printing. US interests would have been able to transfer $billions in hard assets from the EU, if not for EU counter moves to eliminate that advantage. Now it's back to stalemate mode with both sides sitting on extra reserves that they can't really move.
-Structural problems where the Fed have some print policy, but a parasitic hierarchy of banks is doing funny things with the money instead of lending it, because no Glass Steagal.
-You're right about a coordinated conspiracy and the Satanic elites have some suicidal plan.
-Or... anarchy rules, everything is a pathological mess, and no-one's in charge. Ideological belief in the superiority of Capitalism could do that -- government bureaucrats simply shrug their shoulders because the free market already pays them to do what they do.


All the 51% stuff and other attacks? It's all priced in.

Centralisation boogie-man = big yawn. As mentioned above, it naturally results from your favourite simulated annealing process.




Mining is a temporary bootstrapping thing. As a feature of money, the 'costliness' of the tokens has near zero utility. Calling that cost "intrinsic value" is just a distraction for people who haven't quite wrapped their heads around more advanced ideas that cash is a symbolic pointer to a web of trust.
Mining is a (maybe) necessary evil so that trust can be built on immature networks where no naturally trustworthy leaders have emerged yet. Bitcoin allows proof-of-stake to be added. Whereas perpetual POW crappyness is implausible.

agreed.

meh.

So you want to reinvent hashcash? How? Perhaps a small fee to prevent ddos? Maybe all the miners get together and vote to determine fee levels?... You haven't thought this through, have you?

2nd gen cryptos like Ethereum could make that issue completely irrelevant. E.g.: Ethereum would allow you to set up any centralised cash or share system inside a contract, and the "decentralised cloud server mining" nonsense is outsourced and non-intrusive. Your server just runs seamlessly until it runs out of funds.