The process had to be bootstrapped somehow. And given that the world's economy at the time bitcoin was invented ran on fiat currency, it's not surprising that fiat currency was used to help bootstrap the process.

> I'm not sure what your point is here.

My point is that your original claim:

> Buuuuut, they bought it with fiat currencies, in many cases USD. So... right there the entire idea breaks down.

is false. Just because the process was bootstrapped with fiat currency does not imply that "the entire idea breaks down."

> 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.

I'm just saying, the idea that there is in fact an equitable pre-distribution of agency and power to draw from is fallacious. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try and create better systems; just that we shouldn't pretend such a thing existed.

And it IS factually correct in that there was state-maintained fiat currency at the genesis of nearly every story, we just both agree it doesn't matter that much.

Consider how uninteresting this exchange is, and how much of our collective time you've wasted by not reading the entire post. You've spent MUCH more time talking with me (and I with you) than if you had JUST READ THE POST.

Whether I read it or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that you opened your argument with a demonstrably false claim.

> And it IS factually correct in that there was state-maintained fiat currency at the genesis of nearly every story

That may be, but that's not what you said, nor is it what I disputed.

> Consider how uninteresting this exchange is

I dunno, I think it's kind of fascinating the lengths some people will go to to avoid saying something as simple as, "You're right, I phrased that badly. What I meant to say was..."