Not sure what's the proper etiquette to dealing with trolls here, but out of respect to this forum, I'll try and rephrase the sarcastic statements into a constructive conversation:

That's a very good question. I believe there's no consensus on that - not even in this forum. There's a lot of research already demonstrating that there's a strong belief that bitcoin will hit mainstream adoption, but none that I could find on whether it should. From many discussions on this topic, I found both the most extreme bitcoin's anti-establishment advocates and the ideology-agnostics have interest in seeing an increase in value, liquidity, volume, stability and utility of the coin. Being "fundamentally humanitarian" movement suggests it addresses... all humans? But I can see why some will want to keep it away from mainstream.

I'd like to thank you for pointing that out. This is a misunderstanding I take full responsibility for causing as I completely neglected to clarify: the entire h4x exercise is a pure proof-of-concept environment aimed at showcasing the new concept and engaging with the community to scrutinize and perfect it. The Tide Protocol itself is more than a year away from going live. Once live, anyone will be able to host and run an ORK node anywhere (public cloud or not) and join the decentralized network. The current 50 nodes have been deployed by us on the 3 most common public clouds to allow for the easiest targeting. We're still looking into ways to allow as much public access into those nodes as we can.
I'll add that clarification on my original post now.

As I see it, those are not mutually exclusive nor contradicting concepts. If anything, giving "the people" that level of accountability over a scarce (dare I say, financial) asset is a step forward for humanity. The Tide Protocol is all about personal gain for personal accountability. Mainstream or not, I don't see any individual or community protected against that fallibility - so why make it a barrier? No current technology, as complex and inconvenient as may be, can offer that protection. Not even airgap segregation - as proven with the stuxnet attack (https://www.f5.com/labs/articles/cisotociso/attacking-air-gap-segregated-computers, https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-safe-is-your-air-gapped-pc-attackers-can-now-suck-data-out-via-power-lines/). As we see it, what's left is a continuous forward evolution of a different mixture of compromises between security and usability in pursuit of the holy grail of pure trustlessness.

I'm really not sure how to approach that question. Neither from a technical nor philosophical aspects. I can only imagine it's an emotional subject - for which I'd like to categorically apologise if this discussion thread, or even the entire Tide notion, offends anyone. I'm not being sarcastic, condescending or funny here. I can truly appreciate how this can be construed by some as almost blasphemous - and it is not the intention here. As engineers, it is with the purest of intentions we hope to improve or better current technologies - even for those perceived to be perfect as is. To those offended, unless they can find ways to humour themselves by contributing to our cause, I can only invite you to ignore this thread in the future.