Edit: This post should probably be read in the manner of a Depth First Traversal (to a depth of one or two). i.e. It might not be coherent to those not familiar with the mentioned concepts.

Calacanis thinks Bitcoin could take off. Why would it succeed where other digital currencies have failed? Because it is totally decentralized.

The math seems good. The idea is about as interesting as they get. The potential ramifications are tremendous. But is the general population interested? Even if they are, is there not a chance that no matter how good, a fiat currency upheld by algorithm would be generally less respected than one maintained by the government? The general populace is neither mathematician or computer scientist, nor cypherpunk.

But let’s assume it works and gains some critical mass to become a viable platform for everyday transactions, then I wonder, would the cypherpunk-libertarian-anarchist’s wet dream of the replacement of government by Assassination Politics stand a chance of occurring? After all, who wouldn’t want to see an overarching mematic skynet striking down those who had angered the masses? (Me.) I think the notion of Assassination Politics coming to fruition and still being restricted to those who had broken some sort of libertarian ideal is farcical to its very core.

The AP thought experiment reeks of a libertarian underestimation of the bounds of human empathy to me. Not that if I had been through what Jim Bell has as a result of my principles I wouldn’t want the status quo to undergo upheaval, but in a lot of ways, and despite many of their goals that I truly believe are noble, the world of the cypherpunks is a self propagating echo chamber. Do I discount the notion that they might genuinely be the visionaries experiencing the inevitable initial resistance to the new frontier? Not at all.

But I am also far from convinced that their new frontier is as far reaching as they believe, that it would be a net good, that it is inevitable, or that anyone actually has the smarts to predict it.