Nothing in my original post posited that existing blockchain implementations are currently capable of the kind of political hand-binding that I was speculating on. Of course what I was talking about is a wish -- the original poster's question was 'could,' not 'can they currently.' The root of my idea is that blockchain, as an algorithm, creates the potential for transparent protocols for transferring value. Wars, coups, insurgencies -- all of these are made possible through creative financing, i.e. the ability to funnel money toward (or away from) violence specialists. Thus, cryptocurrencies -- programmable money -- could be programmed to freeze, siphon, or otherwise act as a barrier to war.

Of course, the last half of your post is true - that we should focus on the potential for abuse. Yes, everything I've said means that nefarious or well-intentioned actors could very well create a new tyrannical world order because the are able to protocolize coercion.

Which actually isn't a critique of my argument - it strikes at a more profound question: is war always bad? is it sometimes justified? As in, 'peace' might simply mean the oppressed continuing to be oppressed. War might be liberation. To me, one thing is clear: cryptocurrencies and blockchain do are algorithms that yes, can be wielded as a shield against oppression or, maybe more likely, as tool toward hyperefficient oppression.