...the so-called "heroes" of Bitcoin are not just wrong, they are delusional...
You keep making these wild assertions about how certain Bitcoiners/libertarians/"pseudo-liberals" are wrong and delusional about their "arguments". Then you don't even bother to mention what those arguments are, and then when you can be bothered to actually state the argument and what you think is wrong with it, you ignore any counterargument.
Case in point was you saying "pseudo-liberals" are crazy because they think that Bitcoin will stop all wars. I then pointed out that war is actually very tightly linked to inflation, and that bitcoin is immune to inflation, and therefore there is a case to be made that Bitcoin could make war difficult.
You, of course, don't respond to that at all.
You do understand that when people are at speaking engagements they tend to use demagoguery, hyperbole, undefended assertions, and take incredibly optimistic long positions? That doesn't say anything about the foundation of their thinking, or how they got to that position, it just stirs debate, gets people interested, and makes the speaker more fun to listen to. It's just rhetoric, not some thorough peer reviewed paper that they've taken months to consider. You seem to be perfectly happy to take a few soundbites and go off on a tirade about how crazy certain people are.
Or, perhaps you're only listening to fringe wackos that don't even represent the majority position of the people you're referring to. I can't really know, since you are anything but specific about the problems you have.
I have already explained that I agree with limited government and reducing their power. I have also explained that any discussion about Bitcoin reducing or ending wars and many of the economic arguments are based on an assumption that the entire economy will switch over to Bitcoin. Those discussion are, for the most part, are interesting as thought experiments but otherwise worthless. I am not going to waste my time arguing minute details about that stuff. The real discussion is when Bitcoin gets some significant percentage of the economy how that will effect the economy and policies of things like central bankers. That is the rational discussion. it is discussed now and then but most of the discussion if that we have almost 100% government fiat or 100% Bitcoin.
I would agree that the fringe wackos like Vorhees, Shrem, Mayer, etc. don't represent the majority but they are the loudest and they get the most coverage. My issue is that people like that are making it difficult to present Bitcoin to the general public. While they were champions early on they are now detrimental to the adoption of Bitcoin and are making it weaker. Many Bitcoiners don't realize that because they don't interact with the public at large and they just call the public all stupid because they don't understand Bitcoin and generally like State-run institutions. It is like an election where one candidate gets wiped out at the polls and their supporters stand around all confused because "everybody" they knew supported the losing candidate.