1. The House of Representatives shall consist of a number of representatives as near as is possibly equal to the cube root of the population of the United States.

2. The number of representatives in the House of Representatives, and the apportionment thereof among the several States, shall be adjusted after each Census.

Twenty-ninth Amendment

1. Congress shall be in recess for the four months prior to any federal election, except if an extraordinary session is called by the President.

2. No candidate for the House of Representatives, the Senate, the President, any political party, faction, caucus, or group shall campaign except during the four months before the general election, or the two months before a primary election, where held.

3. Congress shall set a maximum spending limit for candidates to the House of Representatives. The maximum spending limit for candidates to the Senate shall be five times that set for the House and the maximum spending limit for candidates for President shall be ten times that set for the House. The maximum spending limit for a political party shall be ten times that set for the House, and no party shall exceed that limit over the whole of the United States.

4. No individual may campaign for an election to the House of Representatives, the Senate, or for the President, except a candidate thereof. No group may campaign for any election for the preceding except a political party registered in the State where the campaigning is to take place.

5. Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Thirtieth Amendment

The President shall have the right to veto, in whole or in part, any appropriations bill passed by Congress, but Congress shall retain the right to overturn any such veto by a vote of two-thirds.

Thirty-first Amendment

1. No election in the United States or in any of the several States shall take place except according to the principles of approval voting or proportional representation.

2. The President and Vice President of the United States shall be elected by approval vote. The Electors of the Electoral College shall be compelled to cast their votes in the same manner as the national popular vote.

3. The Senate shall be elected by approval vote.

4. The members of the House of Representatives, apportioned among the several States, shall be elected by approval vote in States with only one member, and by proportional representation otherwise.

Thirty-second Amendment

All judges of the United States and Justices of the Supreme Court shall have a term of fifteen years from the date of their confirmation.

Thirty-third Amendment

The number of Justices of the Supreme Court shall be fixed at thirteen.

Thirty-fourth Amendment

1. The Twenty-second Amendment is repealed.

2. No person shall be elected President, nor to the House of Representatives nor the Senate if he shall be over the age of seventy years.

3. No person shall serve more than six terms in the House of Representatives, nor more than two terms in the Senate, nor more than three terms as President.

Thirty-fifth Amendment

No person shall be subject to involuntary servitude or slavery as a result of imprisonment.

Thirty-sixth Amendment

No person shall suffer death as a punishment for a crime, except for treason or crimes committed in the military or on the high seas.

Thirty-seventh Amendment

No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title. No bill shall be altered or amended on its passage through either House so as to change its original purpose as determined by its total content and not alone by its title.

Thirty-eighth Amendment

1. The military of the United States shall not act across its national borders without the express authorization of Congress in the form of a declaration of war, or the approval of a resolution of an intergovernmental organization to which the United States is a party.

2. Congressional approval for military action shall not be required if that military action is taken, in the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief, in response to or in anticipation of a direct attack on the United States or any of the several States, or if the military action is in accordance with a treaty approved by the Senate.

Thirty-ninth Amendment

1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed. No tax shall be levied on income, wealth, property, consumption, trade, capitation, or excise.

2. The sole tax levied shall be a collection of the economic rent of the unimproved value of land or its extractable or severable resources, or of extraterrestrial domains, or of legal privileges on the basis of location, or of rights-of-way, or of patents, or of negative externalities.

3. This Amendment shall not prevent any government from collecting a fee for the provision of service or for access to any public thing.

4. The collection of economic rents on patents and extraterrestrial domains shall be by the government of the United States.

5. The collection of economic rents on legal privileges on the basis of location, rights-of-way, or negative externalities shall be by the government of the United States, or by one of the several States or any other government according to the peculiar location.

6. The collection of economic rents on the unimproved value of land or its extractable or severable resources shall be partitioned such that half is collected by the United States, and the remainder by the State in which the property resides and any other government within such State, as provided by the relevant law of the State.

Fortieth Amendment

1. Except as waived in times of war, or by approval of three-fifths of the whole number of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the total outlays of the United States not including repayment of debt principal shall not exceed the total receipts of the United States not including debt borrowed.

2. The United States shall not run a surplus. Any money remaining after the outlay of the budget shall be used for repayment of debt principal, and any remaining thereafter shall be dispersed equally among the citizens of the United States.

Forty-first Amendment

1. All people are equal under the law without distinction of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability, veteran status, or other status. Discrimination is forbidden on such distinctions. Gender-specific language in the Constitution or in any law, legal decision, or other official action, shall apply equally to male and female except as specified.

2. This Amendment shall not prevent the provision of special treatment or service by the United States or by any of the several States to veterans or the elderly; nor shall it entitle any non-citizen to the rights accorded of the citizen.

Around a year ago, a post appeared on Reddit with the purpose of “debunking” various pro-cryptocurrency arguments. In doing so, the user that made this post received great accolades for his often poorly explained arguments. I have endeavored here to dispute his arguments, point-by-point, in a catechism-like form. I will quote the post itself,1 and the strawmen he uses. Any portion of this essay that is in block quotes is directly from the source material, with some small formatting changes and spelling fixes to make this essay easier to read.

The Catechism

Bitcoin is up to $$$$. Wow. Now are you willing to admit you’re wrong? — Nope. There are lots of holes in the bitcoin-is-a-store-of-value argument. Someone just paid $120k for a banana taped to a wall. That doesn’t mean it’s the best designed banana ever, or that it will be worth anything a year from now, despite how many people are talking about it. Beyond this there’s plenty of evidence the market is manipulated.

In fairness to the original post, using the price of bitcoin as an argument for its adoption is a pretty bad point to make. However, the link provided as far as bitcoin being a poor store of value basically says that “money can’t store value.” Frankly, it is not clear what theory of money this article or this post operates under, but it has long been established that a currency must serve three purposes: a store of value, a medium of exchange, and a unit of account. So the idea that “money can’t store value” is patently false. And as far as future value goes, nothing is ever certain.

Helps Bank the Un-banked — Nope. A pre-paid gift/debit card is better/accepted at more places and easier to use. Additionally, there’s a system already helping “bank the un-banked” called “Mobile Money” which is used worldwide and has less technical requirements than crypto, is much faster, and more consumer protections. Also there is over billion dumb phone users globally, mostly in developing nations in Africa and Asia. They can’t use shitcoins but they can use mobile money networks.

Would you have the poor, who make up most of the “unbanked” or “underbanked” use pre-paid gift cards, of all things, to conduct transactions? And besides, it is not as though lacking bank access simply means it is more difficult to undertake transactions: the unbanked use cash, not pre-paid gift cards. Banking the unbanked means giving people access to lending and the ability to earn interest, which has been made available through the myriad DeFi protocols. There is a reason why the nations with the highest rates of cryptocurrency adoption are in Africa and Central America, with Nigeria at No. 1.2

Allows money to be sent around the world instantly — Nope. Wire transfers, Moneygram, Paypal and other systems are easier to use. Paypal even works in often cited countries like Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Vanuatu, China and El Salvador.

El Salvador has adopted bitcoin as its currency, Moneygram is owned by the Stellar Foundation, and money transfers are slower and costlier than blockchain transactions.

Thanks to blockchain, it is possible to carry out transactions and transfer assets without having to rely on a trustee. This can be done globally and cost-efficiently, and it can be proven at any time without any gaps. — Incorrect. First: Crypto is not an “asset.” It's a token you hope to redeem for an actual asset. Second: The process of redeeming such a token requires a trustee. Third: Crypto and blockchain runs on the Internet, uses radio waves (WiFi, Satellite, Cellular) and terrestrial wiring (fiber, twisted pair, undersea cables) all of which exist and are reliable because of a trustee: centralized government authority. Multiple “trustees” are needed.

The original poster makes three points, so I will deal with each in turn. First: crypto is indeed an asset. Its quality is a matter of debate, certainly some make better assets for investment purposes than others. The poster seems to adhere to the Ramseyan notion that only something which directly produces creates value is an asset, and everything else is an asset. This is a misguided notion. An asset is merely a thing that is owned by an entity. That’s it. The poster’s second point is partially true: if someone wishes to redeem crypto for fiat, a third-party know-your-client trustee certainly is required. However, trading one cryptocurrency for another, or for a blockchain asset like a non-fungible token, does not require a trustee, as has been demonstrated by decentralized exchanges by Uniswap. The third part is also partially true: centralized governments do contribute to internet infrastructure, but most is managed by private corporations, which are trustees in a way. That being said, it is unclear how much this matters to the “trustee” argument as it pertains to cryptocurrency.

Can’t Be Manipulated — Adherents claim crypto’s “de-centralized” nature makes it immune from manipulation. In actuality the entire market is very actively being manipulated as we speak. One of the big manipulators is Bitfinex/Tether.

The original poster here misunderstands what is meant by “can’t be manipulated.” Immunity from manipulation means that the underlying network, whether Bitcoin or Ethereum or whatever, is necessarily immutable. You can’t alter the Bitcoin network, at least not very easily. Now, the market for crypto-assets can be manipulated, just like the market for anything else. As for the whole Tether situation in general, it is unclear whether or not manipulation actually has taken place, but even if it has, that makes no bearing on the integrity of the Bitcoin network.

Can’t Be Seized — Nope. Authorities all around the world have seized crypto.

Yes they have: from exchanges and from cold storage where the private key was written down somewhere where the authorities could find it, but it is certainly far more secure from government seizure than domestic bank accounts or other hard assets.

Bypasses government/taxation — Nope. You can’t use crypto for anything useful without converting it into fiat and passing through regulatory boundaries.

It’s unclear what the argument actually is here. The point of crypto is that it is divorced from the interference of state authority, not that it is immune from regulation.

Inflation proof — Nope. There is no guarantee crypto will perpetually increase in value. And its exchange rate will still be dependent upon the current inflation rate..

I’m noticing a pattern in the links this poster is using to defend his points. They’re all from either banks, government authorities, or academics who have completely lost their minds. Of course there is no guarantee that crypto will perpetually increase in value. There is never any guarantee in economics. However, the U.S. dollar depreciated by around 7% in 2021,3 compared to a 66.5% appreciation for bitcoin.4 Do with that information what you will.

It’s more secure than other payment methods — Nope. There's not much “security” when a simple mistake can mean you lose your money forever with no recourse.

Yeah, my credit card number could get stolen, that doesn’t mean that American Express is a bad payment system. It’s the same reason why if I use really good encryption on my files, and I lose the password, that data is as good as gone. Introducing a backdoor, which is what “recourse” in this context really means, damages programs and networks. So, the lack of recourse in Bitcoin or Ethereum is a necessary, if somewhat unfortunate, cost of the absolutely immutable security of the network.

It’s censorship resistant — Nope. Crypto still relies on an internet/communications infrastructure which is tightly controlled and regulated by special interests with competing agendas. There’s no evidence that various municipalities cannot severely restrict its use if desired. While it’s impossible to 100% stop crypto, municipalities can absolutely make it no longer worthwhile to use.

The very existence of this post, and the strength of the sentiment behind it, disproves this point. If cryptocurrency was not censorship-resistant, which was originally part of the initial point of Bitcoin, then it would not have become as popular as it is, especially among people in oppressive countries, as well as with drug dealers and criminals. No one would use bitcoin, or indeed any tool, if it did not do precisely what it was meant to do.

Blockchain is new technology — Nope. A blockchain is an append-only linked list using cryptographic hashes, which have been around for decades. There’s a reason this technology is not widely in use, because it’s not very efficient. In 2021 this tech still doesn't work.

It seems peculiar to argue that “the technology is not widely in use” in a post complaining about the widespread popularity about that very same technology. Additionally, the argument that “the technology behind Bitcoin has been around for decades” does not have any bearing on its value. Why adopt electronic calculators when abacuses have been around for centuries? The calculator isn’t new technology!

Blockchain is immutable — Nope. It can and has been changed. (See forks, 51% attacks, etc). As of this writing, there are 436 forks of BTC.

This is a somewhat valid point: the endless forking of cryptocurrencies does make an argument for the “digital commonwealth” of evolving blockchains like Tezos, but from a technical perspective, the forking of a blockchain does not violate the principle of “immutability,” because the fork only creates two separate chains, instead of altering the original, unified one.

Blockchain has “smart contracts” — So-called “smart contracts” are neither innovative, nor very “smart.” They're just a series of very limited IF-THEN statements that can be executed on blockchain transactions. A typical web server script is infinitely more smart and useful than a smart contract. Also, smart contracts are subject to the Oracle Problem.

The poster does not seem to appreciate that what he is describing as “the stupidity of smart contracts” is, in fact, the very concept of a computer program. That being said, the Oracle Problem is a valid concern, one that many cryptocurrency projects have spent large quantities of time and money on resolving (see Chainlink).

Major industry players are adopting crypto — Not really, and those that are, aren't doing well. Stripe abandoned bitcoin support, Microsoft also shut down their blockchain service. Financial firms who claim to be “exploring” crypto or “handling crypto” aren't really doing that - they’re still basically dealing in fiat, like Paypal who is outsourcing the crypto part to Paxos Trust Company, LLC. Most are instead partnering with exchanges who convert that crypto into fiat within their existing systems.

First of all, tell that to Michael Saylor, Elon Musk, and Cathie Woods. Smart money is most certainly getting involved in the cryptocurrency world. That being said, the reason why Stripe abandoned bitcoin support is because it was becoming apparent that bitcoin was more useful as a store of value than as a medium of exchange, contradicting earlier points made by this poster. The idea of bitcoin as “digital gold” has long been an ideal for adherents, so this is not particularly surprising. It is also true that the “crypto adoption” of PayPal and Cashapp (among others) is a sham, but that is partially because they fundamentally rely on the fiat system. True crypto-centric financial institutions exist. Americans can buy their groceries with bitcoin through a Coinbase Visa card.

You can’t print Bitcoin like the Fed prints cash — Wrong. Yes you can. First, bitcoin has forked several times; second you don’t necessarily need to print more bitcoin. You can create artificial inflation through wash trading with tokens like Tether. Stablecoins are printed out of thin air and traded for bitcoin and vice-versa. Same difference. Also there’s rampant evidence that stablecoins are not asset backed and creating their own market inflation.

The forking of Bitcoin into Bitcoin Cash did not “print more bitcoin,” instead, it created a new network of Bitcoin Cash. This is in no way similar to the printing of cash by the Federal Reserve. Again, the problem of Tether and Bitfinex does require some more investigation, and I would advise anyone to avoid trading in USDT, but the possible bad action by a single market player, or even a group of market players, does not negatively impact the overall quality of cryptocurrency.

Bitcoin is the best performing asset class of the decade — Nope. In reality, due to inflation created in the crypto market as a result of unrestricted stablecoin printing, there's no way to actually qualify how much liquidity is actually in the market. The “increase in the price of bitcoin” is more likely the result of market manipulation which has been going on from the beginning to present time.

Utterly false. Laszlo Hanyecz’s purchase of two pizzas for 10 thousand bitcoin gives a rough exchange rate of $0.004. At its peak, one bitcoin was worth around $63 thousand, a total increase of 1,575,000%, or thereabouts. Such growth rate is not the result of market manipulation, it simply could not be. Certainly, it is possible that some of that growth is illegitimate, but it is impossible to tell.

Nobody can control crypto — Nope. There are already mining consortiums that have the ability to manipulate the blockchain if they so desire.

This conflates crypto in general with Bitcoin in particular, so let’s deal with both separately. First, it is entirely possible that only a few mining consortiums could manipulate the blockchain, but doing so would require the convincing of every single node on their sub-network (which would be a tall order). Such an action would almost certainly result in the collapse of the price of Bitcoin, or a substantial fork. Besides, if it was economic and rational to manipulate the Bitcoin network, wouldn’t it seem likely that these consortiums would have already done so? Second, there are some highly decentralized proof-of-stake networks that are impervious to manipulation due to their sheer lack of concentrated control, like good ol’ Tezos.

Crypto is “trustless money” — Nope. Whether you decide to trust government, or various computer programmers, unless you audit all the code yourself, you’re still "trusting" in some other party.

This is basically true, when I undertake transactions in Bitcoin, I choose to trust the security of the network. When I undertake transactions in United States dollars, I have to trust the banking system and the Federal Reserve. However, all of the Bitcoin (or any other cryptocurrency, for that matter) code is open-source, auditable, and easily available for the public. How long has Rand Paul been trying to audit the Federal Reserve? Who are you more willing to trust?

People want “trustless transactions” — Nope. People prefer to do business with entities they trust. Trust is a key component in fair trade as well as a moral/ethical society. A system that panders to the untrustworthy is unlikely to attract anybody other than parties that aren’t worthy of trust, which explains crypto's significant use as an exchange of value involving criminal activities (much higher per-capita than all other major monetary systems).

There is so much nonsense in this argument it is genuinely difficult to know where to begin, so I’ll just go point-by-point. “People prefer to do business with entities they trust.” No, not at all. Everyone has gone to a restaurant for the first time, or shopped at a retail store in a new place. In fact, almost no business is done with entities we trust; if I cash someone out at a store, I do not trust their credit, which is precisely why they pay before they leave the store, or use credit from a trusted company like American Express. Trustlessness is the reason currency exists in the first place. “Trust is a key component in fair trade as well as a moral/ethical society.” No, it isn’t. No one trusts anyone, that is the fundamental driving force behind global capitalism, and that is perfectly fine. As far as the moral argument, if I buy food from a new restaurant and they insist that I pay up front with a cash or a credit card, instead of a check (the last remaining trust-first method of payment), is this an immoral or unethical system? Of course not. “A system that panders to the untrustworthy is unlikely to attract anybody other than parties that aren’t worthy of trust…” No. The cryptocurrency world is full of unsavory characters, it cannot be denied, but of course the vast majority of users are decent, honorable people. Such is also the case with cash, or credit cards. Besides, the very fact that criminals are so likely to use cryptocurrencies are proof, if unfortunate, of their effectiveness.

Bitcoin has value because of Proof-of-Work — Nope. If I spend my life savings sailing a boat to a foreign place where somebody gives me a password, that password is not worth the money I spent getting there. To anybody else it's still just a bunch of letters and numbers. However many resources were consumed to create it, does not matter. And ideally, if it was that difficult to create, it’s a stupid idea that just wastes resources unnecessarily.

“If I spend my life savings sailing a boat to a foreign place where somebody gives me a password, that password is not worth the money I spent getting there.” If the password is to an account worth a certain amount of money, the answer to that question will depend on the cost of the trip and the amount of money unlocked. Otherwise, this argument is meaningless word salad, though it might be a decent polemic for proof-of-stake.

You can make a lot of money in crypto — Unlikely. Not for most people. The only way someone makes money in crypto is if someone else loses money. Don't be fooled by survivorship bias. NOTE: If you are “HODL”ing crypto, you have no value. That money is gone and only becomes useful when/if you can cash out. Like traditional bank runs, there’s inadequate liquidity in the market to pay even 1% of holders at the current market rate.

I understand the sentiment of this argument, that poor liquidity is indicative of a bad system, but that is simply not true. Take for instance the stock market. The global market for equities was $37.7 trillion USD in the second quarter of 2021.5 Does anyone really believe that there is $37.7 trillion in cash waiting around to buy in during a crash? Of course not! The stock market is deeply illiquid, even in broad terms, but that does not prove that the stock market is somehow a scam.

L2 solutions like “Lightning Network” will make crypto better — “Better” still isn’t competitive unfortunately. First, the fact that you’d need another layer of bureaucracy is proof the tech isn’t practical nor innovative. Second, L2 solutions like LN are nowhere near as efficient as claimed, and will still be bottlenecked by the underlying blockchain inefficiency.

As for the competitiveness angle, Visa usually processes 1,700 transactions per second, with a theoretical maximum of 56 thousand.6 The Lightning Network has a maximum throughput of 25 million transactions per second.7 Needing another layer of technology is fundamentally not proof that the technology is not practical. Was Unix not innovative when it was introduced, because modern Mac computers use the Aqua interface? Does the addition of a visual layer in modern web browsers render the concept of the internet non-innovative? Also, an unsourced Reddit post is not a valid reference.

Company X is making a fortune in crypto — Nope. They’re making a fortune exploiting people who hope to make money in crypto. There is a difference, like the difference between someone heading to California for the gold rush, and someone setting up a hardware store to sell shovels and buckets to greedy suckers. Exchanges don’t make money from crypto. They make money from people. Crypto doesn’t generate any value.

There is the Ramseyan view of assets again: “crypto doesn’t generate any value.” Neither does equity ownership in a company which does not pay dividends, or owning real estate that one does not rent out. Does that make non-dividend stock or real estate not assets? Of course not, and it does not make the exchanges which facilitate these transactions scammers by any means.

Helps bypass corrupt/hyper-inflated countries’ monetary systems — Nope. In countries with dysfunctional economies, basic trade and bartering of goods and services works better and is more used than crypto. In a crippled economy, using a volatile, unsecured token like crypto is simply replacing one unstable monetary system with another.

Would you have the poor barter in goods, and deny them access to banking and monetary services? Again, if this were true, then poor people in developing countries would not be using bitcoin, which they clearly are.

Crypto is a good investment — Nope. You’re not “investing” in anything. Stocks represent actual intrinsic value in companies that own assets and can generate income. Ownership of crypto does not create any value or represent any assets. The only way crypto increases in value is through recruitment of downline buyers - which is the textbook definition of a MLM/Pyramid scheme. Just because some people make money does not mean the model is in any way, lucrative for even a noticeable percentage of players. Most people will lose.

Another Ramseyist argument. Of course crypto is an asset. Beanie Babies are also assets, and they could also be considered investments. The definition of “asset” is not subjectively based on the quality of what it actually is in the opinion of a single person. Again, stocks increase in value based on recruitment of downline buyers, and the stock market is clearly not a Pyramid scheme. There have been financial scams in the crypto world, like Bitconnect, but the concept of speculative growth in general by itself does not qualify as proof of a scam.

Bitcoin is a store of value, better than gold, etc. — Nope. See the above “Crypto is a good investment” myth. Comparing crypto to another system and saying it's better is also foolish. Gold is also a relatively lousy “store of value” when compared with stocks and other securities. A “store of value” is just that: a store of value. Bitcoin neither represents anything “stored,” nor anything of “value.” Bitcoin has value because of marketing hype, not anything tangible. It's popularity is a “fad.” And yes, some fads can last decades. That doesn't mean they'll be forever appealing.

Stocks and securities are not stores of value, they are speculative assets. Comparing gold or bitcoin to them is unreasonable. Bitcoin does represent something stored: a value on a ledger stored decentralized on many computers, and it does represent value, because all value is subjective.

If money can't be created from thin air, governments will spend more frugally. — Nope. History shows that when monetary systems were asset-backed, it didn't have much of an impact on government spending; what it did have an impact on was government engaging in more draconian legislation to have more control over assets like silver and gold. Plus, as outlined before, crypto can be created out of thin air; it can be forked; it can be further sub-divided, and it can be augmented with so-called “stable-coins” which are fractionally reserved. You want more responsible government spending? You don't need a new monetary system. Just pass a balanced budget amendment.

Just pass a balanced budget amendment! If you’re homeless, just buy a house! Unfortunately, the world simply does not worth that way. It is true that the asset backing of money does not affect government spending, but it does have a substantial effect on inflation, which is a greater evil, since inflation is the primary means by which modern governments raise revenue. No, crypto cannot be created out of thin air, as shown earlier.

Crypto is great because ____ [fiat, government, The Fed, taxes, etc.] sucks — Nope. This is a fallacy of distraction. If you have to talk shit about a very useful and necessary part of society and the economy, in order to make your fantasy digital dollars seem reasonable, your argument is weak. “I have a car with square wheels. It’s the best because soon, everybody will learn the secret of how corrupt round wheels are!”

This isn’t so much an anti-crypto argument as it is a rhetorical one. When debating between two alternatives (in this case, cryptocurrency vs. traditional fiat currency), it is not hypocritical or wrong to point out the problems in one system, no more than pointing out the corruption of your opponent in an election is an “ad hominem.”

Crypto solves the “Byzantine General Problem!11one!1” — Ironically The “BGP problem” is a problem that crypto creates that other payment systems have already solved through more reliable protocols and centralized standards. It’s ultimately not a problem that a payment system should have to encounter if the payment system is well-designed. See earlier arguments about trust and security. Crypto enthusiasts like to toss about this notion that blockchain solves some kind of epic hypothetical scenario they call the “Byzantine General Problem” which suggests if you have different armies that you need to get instructions to, there should be a way to get perfect instructions to each one if any part of your com network fails. — The idea being that with blockchain, there is no way to subvert the transaction between parties so any breakdown on the Internet doesn't corrupt the transaction. Problem solved? No. It’s not solved. Because just like in the actual Byzantine General scenario, you’re still dependent on the “generals” to decide to act on the message or come up with their own plan. Bitcoin doesn't solve this situation. Bitcoin has forked multiple times, code can be hacked, miners can form consortiums and choose to do something different. Aside from this fact, there’s another issue with the “Byzantine General Problem” that also applies even more obviously in crypto: If for some reason you lose communication with your armies, perhaps they should already have a plan for that scenario and not wait around for a message that may or may not be legit? Perhaps it's better to wait and re-assess the situation until you regain contact? Likewise if your payment network is damaged and not operating normally, maybe it's not a good idea to toss your money into that void and hope for the best?

The Byzantine General’s Problem is present in everything from Google to nuclear-armed submarines. It is not solely a problem of cryptocurrency.8

Crypto (i.e. Monero) is anonymous — Nope. None of these cryptocurrencies, even the ones that have better obfuscation of transactions, are truly “anonymous.” In most cases, converting fiat to/from XMR undermines the anonymity. The legitimacy of this claim relies on a hypothetical scenario where the transaction doesn’t cross through any other systems that aren’t as secure, which is unrealistic. Also fiat is a more anonymous currency than XMR, and can be more easily sent from one party to another. It may be slightly slower than digital transmission, but this again isn't really a problem among people who aren’t criminals and don’t have a need for instant, non-reversible, secret international monetary transactions.

Much like the remainder of the poster’s arguments, this is hypothetical and easily disproven by looking at the reaction of the monetary establishment. The IRS has maintained a $625 thousand bounty for anyone who can crack Monero’s ring encryption.9 It is true that converting fiat to or from Monero undermines the anonymity, but this is not required, nor does not disparage the usefulness of Monero in general. No, fiat is not more anonymous than Monero, except in the form of cash, which is only useful in face-to-face transactions. The last line in this argument argues that Monero is not useful for “people who aren’t criminals,” which is an appeal to legality. Who defines who is and who is not a criminal, or what defines a criminal activity?

In conclusion, this post, like many others, is a rambling mess full of contradictory messages and logical fallacies. I do not say this to defend Bitcoin or cryptocurrency in general as an unimpeachably perfect technology, but rather to tear down some commonly parroted nonsensical anti-crypto arguments. This is of course done in the spirit of good-natured debate, and I do not have any ill will towards the original poster.