The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market

Let's look at an example of Bill Gates - if instead of investing any money or time in Microsoft, he gave away everything he could, he would not help as many people in the end. Again, you need money to make money. Of course you need to also consider the other effects of Microsoft in the calculation, which is no easy matter, but the general point is that investment by him eventually led to greater helping of those suffering injustices.

This does not consider that subsidizing someone's current lifestyle doesn't nearly have the impact of helping them develop economic means. It's a classic give a fish versus teach fishing.

And again, someone being hypocritical is not an argument against the logic. It just means that person is selfish and hypocritical. I don't claim that solving these problems is easy or not in direct conflict with human instincts.

There are also issues of fixing injustices justly. It's hard to give up x% of your wealth for a good cause when others are not. I would love to see something like a global 5% reparations tax (scaled by income, benefit from injustice, etc) that I would happily pay because it would be just for all. Of course, getting that to happen is kidding yourself at best.

All of your flawed arguments are still based on you assuming that I'm a hypocrite and no information that I gave you. I would call double BS on your reasoning for disagreement given that you had no knowledge of it when you took the position. Your argument neither had the knowledge nor logic to stand even with the knowledge present.

So basically everyone should be armed to their teeth? Because, if there is no state to impose control, a warlord will emerge who will. Or is there some other solution to the problem that humans have known tendencies toward violence and power hunger?

Buuuuut, they bought it with fiat currencies, in many cases USD. So... right there the entire idea breaks down. Still, maybe that's unfair. A valid criticism of this argument is that it's a variant of the the serf comic argument (or genetic fallacy) in which those embedded in a bad system may not question it because they benefit from it.

The real problem from a libertarian perspective is that bitcoin (and really all PoW blockcahins) just encodes how a new State, a plutocratic one based around processing power and energy availability, is formed. This is in a very literal sense what bitcoin encodes, with the miners being the only folks with any real votes (in that if miners as a group refused to mine other currencies and actively discourage others from doing so, other currencies cannot scale and are locked out).

Not that bitcoin is scaling all that well. Or eth for that matter.

As we've seen from recent research, Bitcoin is slightly better than existing systems at discouraging monopolies (because even accidental misuse could crash the currency), but I seriously doubt a mining duopoly dictating most of the future of bitcoin is something that any libertarian actually calls a positive outcome, other than a snarky nod to damaging existing states.

The long term evolution of the system is pivotal on some new, non-PoW scheme. PoS is the major contender right now. There might be other methods as derivations (e.g., PoW coupled with physical location, PoS with term limits, PoS with accreditation, etc). Non-PoW systems will also scale much more effectively than PoW systems, as well.

Then the stronger kid comes along and takes the toy away, because he is stronger and now it's in his hand and he says "it's mine".

Would you find it coercive to forbid the stronger kid to act this way by means of a law (enforced maybe by the teacher) that forbids stronger kids to steal from smaller kids?

edit: oppressive -> coercive, sorry

The small children argument in general is a super poor one, I don't know why anyone would ever use it. People are naturally bad at various things, and children are almost definitely bad at those things (due to a lack of experience/training). There are few things that children are better at than adults, and the most important thing is that they're better at learning and/or otherwise being adaptable and dynamic.