Devil’s Advocate would say that the Americans will act suddenly and decisively to ensure that no one gets a copy of your private key to pick up the torch and build MPEx-II. Or worse, that *more than one* party gets a copy. (Which MPEx-clone will be the Schelling point for users?)

The first part may not be something one can decisively influence. The second part may not be much of a problem, depending (mostly on whether there's a point of having a MPEx2 or not in the first place).

Another thing: doesn’t one need something more than just the database to operate a proper MPEx? The real-world brokerage access, for instance. Or do you pay aluminum futures holders out of your own pockets when aluminum goes up? I’ve been assuming so far that MPEx is genuinely, if loosely, coupled with meatspace markets.

The various rw-futures kinda died an ignominous death (see misc section). Absolutely no volume on them, possibly for the very reasons discussed in How does one list on MPEx ? :

4. Clear BTC revenue streams. If you don’t take in principally BTC, listing you as a BTC denominated asset makes absolutely zero sense, for a number of reasons. One is that investing in you would be de facto a divestment from BTC, and people in BTC don’t want to divest. Another would be that BTC/USD volatility would induce share price and P/E ratio volatility in your asset, making it unsuitable for rational investing.

And I admit to being rather perplexed when you say that Bitcoin and MPEx have no serious enemies, and then go on to speak of how said systems will utterly destroy the ability of the world’s present-day rulers to rule. Bureaucrats are dumb, but they aren’t that dumb. And eventually they will do something motivated by pure brutality and insulted manhood: say, pillage the major exchanges.

This is seriously nonsense. Did email destroy the Post Office ? Where exactly did the Postmaster General (whose job is to by God get things done) violently assault hotmail or something ? Outside of a Seinfeld sketch I mean.

And did I misread this piece, or did you actually write that markets need strong central planners to function?

Markets don't need central planners at all, strong or weak. They do however need to be centralised. An exchange in which Frank hands over an envelope in which he might have put some silver in exchange for a satchel in which Wayne may have put some potatoes is not a market in any sense of that term. The only way they can actually trade is by going to some place where there's a potato weight and a silver proofing mechanism. Markets centralize trade, this is what they do, this is what they are. A "decentralized market" is much akin to a football field on which an arbitrary number of scoreboards keep the "local" score, whatever that may happen to locally mean.

I’m with you 100% on the usefulness of wise owners. But I regard Bitcoin as interesting primarily because it is a (moderately) successful experiment in ownerless systems. Much of my criticism of MPEx stems from this fact: that it is a kind of strategic retreat from the decentralization experiment.

Bitcoin has certain indisputable advantages, which I maintain MPEx uses to their fullest extent. To my eyes your objection reduces to MPEx not using them past their actual utility, something like condoms are healthy so let's wear them to bed whether we lie with a woman or alone, this rifle is cool so let's take with us everywhere, including fishing, whitewater rafting, scuba diving and so forth.

Principally the disctinction lies along the line of the difference between "ownerless systems" and "trustless currency". Bitcoin is a way to implement accounting that requires you trust relatively few things - accounting is not a substitute for economic activity, but just a measurement thereof. An "ownerless system" by contrast would be some sort of nonsensical post-socialist utopia thing. It has no place in this world (and for that matter most people think they own Bitcoins, are you saying they're deluding themselves ?)

Another thing: doesn't one need something more than just the database to operate a proper MPEx? The real-world brokerage access, for instance. Or do you pay aluminum futures holders out of your own pockets when aluminum goes up? I've been assuming so far that MPEx is genuinely, if loosely, coupled with meatspace markets.

And I admit to being rather perplexed when you say that Bitcoin and MPEx have no serious enemies, and then go on to speak of how said systems will utterly destroy the ability of the world's present-day rulers to rule. Bureaucrats are dumb, but they aren't that dumb. And eventually they will do something motivated by pure brutality and insulted manhood: say, pillage the major exchanges.

And did I misread this piece, or did you actually write that markets need strong central planners to function?

I'm with you 100% on the usefulness of wise owners. But I regard Bitcoin as interesting primarily because it is a (moderately) successful experiment in ownerless systems. Much of my criticism of MPEx stems from this fact: that it is a kind of strategic retreat from the decentralization experiment.

[10] As I gather, the MPEx PR department currently consists of one person, paid to post pictures of pretty girls in Bitcoin forums.

Is this a problem and if so, why?