No, you don't understand what work they are performing now and how it breaks things if they are not doing it. Bitcoin would no longer solve the double spending problem which would defeat the point.

1782 shortly after defeating the british, unquestionably the most powerful nation at the time.

It was a much bigger world then but the US was certainly the most powerful force in the new world.

"citation?"

Citation? You aren't likely to find that as government PR spin but actions speak louder than words. So review native american treaties, the acquisition of Texas, the rest of the southwest, and California.

New mexico for instance was invaded, ownership by claim of might equals right was recognized by the US, the US purchased it for a song then didn't actually pay the bill to Mexico because the US was strong enough to get away with it.

"Natives as a group have the lowest standard of living in the state."

Like he said... "They are better off than anyone else in Polynesia, and have one of the highest standards of living in the world."

Just because it's a low standard by Hawaiian standards doesn't mean its a low standard with any reasonable perspective.

"The reason why these whackjobs's opinions matter is the US is an invading and occupying colonial power who has given the vote to illegal settlers and who has appropriated this Hawaiian land, manifest destiny and all. I get that all of the native American treaties are void and most of the US should be legally reverted to native control and the illegal settlers expelled; but natives don't have nukes or numbers only casinos at the whim of the occupying power."

Oh please. No human beings are the genuine natives of a single square inch of the planet and all of it has passed in possession from hand to hand. There isn't a single person within Hawaii who was there when it wasn't part of the US and they are all born US citizens. Along with all the other native americans. The treaties were nothing more than kindness to people with leaders too stupid to surrender before getting everyone they were responsible for protecting slaughtered.

A treaty is no different than any other contract, you break it when the benefits outweigh the consequences. It's no different than breaking a cell phone contract when the new offer outweighs the cancellation fee. I have native blood (Blackfoot, not Hawaiian) and I have friends who are full blooded and some of them refuse to take the money from those casinos. They don't feel they are entitled to any special treatment just because of the accident of birth.

"That needs not be the case."

That's a common misunderstanding. It does need to be the case and has been mathematically proven that it needs to be the case. Bitcoin miners are performing work, specifically, they are validating transactions. If they were doing something else instead the blockchain wouldn't be guaranteed to be valid and bitcoin could be counterfeited.

Today bitcoin would be a perfect choice for exchanging value between two untrusting parties, even governments. You could have an entity set up a mining operation and control all mining of a bitcoin clone and then distribute based on some other work being performed but then you are back to trusting the entity doing the mining.

If you disagree and think the math is flawed you are welcome to dazzle us all and build the solution. People do things that aren't supposed to be possible every day.

"Did you seriously just say something that exists only in the digital realm"

Seriously are we back in the 90's? Some of the most valuable things on earth only exist in the digital realm, see microsoft office and windows, google, and everything produced by the television and movie industries.

"which solves a cryptographic puzzle nobody actually asked or cares about"

The puzzle of money that can't be counterfeited, doesn't require inflation, and doesn't depend on a central bank? I'm not sure how that falls under a cryptographic puzzle nobody cares about. Using bitcoin to trade with the Chinese would certainly solve some massive problems for the US very quickly.

Technically true even if deliberately obtuse. I will amend myself. Innate value to people. Suddenly food, shelter, and short of globally reverting to a barter system, currency, qualify.

Other things that have innate value do if they didn't bitcoin wouldn't be unique and my argument would be invalidated. Things have an innate value "to people" (qualifier for the benefit of other dude who replied to you) because they have innate properties which make them useful to us. Short of reverting to a pure barter system we will always have need of a currency and if there is one thing with innate properties that makes it most useful to function as one it becomes innately valuable in that respect.

Well, I'd agree which extends the validity of my point beyond Argentina. But for now we are talking about Argentina and it's an easier case to make.

That is the price on the speculators market not the value. Most of those involved in those price shifts aren't even utilizing bitcoin and those markets only come into play when seeking liquidity in a secondary currency. Bitcoin has innate value as the only currency (along with clones):

1. Divisible to an infinite number of units so there are always enough pieces to grow to any transaction volume. (Gold has this flaw, there aren't small enough bits to use to transact in actual gold.)
2. No known method of counterfeiting.
3. Innately digital and transmittable in all major ways.
4. De-centralized system of initial creation and distribution.
5. Innate value in the sense of a useful commodity.
6. Is universal and requires no secondary currencies exchange once critical mass is achieved.

In other words, Bitcoin is the only currency that has innate value in the form of utility where that utility is to function as a quick assured universal means of value transmission where the assurance is not subject to the interests of a third party. Fiat currencies must be valued against other fiat currencies at critical mass. If bitcoin ever reaches critical mass it eliminates the utility of all other currencies except goods with valuations based on supply and demand so the speculative currency market becomes a non-entity.

If bitcoin can be spent at businesses you don't need to convert to pesos and that is the only point the government has visibility into things. Even if you do convert to pesos no government has the resources needed to trace every transaction in every business to determine if the bitcoin funds originally came from tourists vs locals.

This is an oppressive government with immoral laws that are being circumvented. It doesn't let them avoid reporting income altogether unless bitcoin usage reaches critical mass but it does circumvent being legally forced to rely on the corrupt Argentinian fiat system by the corrupt Argentinian government.

Yes, but they are both just different sides of the corporatist party. They divide on talking points, they each use a different flavor of spin to achieve the same objectives.

Look at healthcare for example. The US spends more tax dollars per capita providing no healthcare to it's citizens than most nations with total healthcare (including dental) spend per capita without providing notably better care according to any real objective metric. Implementing real state health care neither requires outlawing private medicine nor increasing taxes. The republicans lie saying it requires both, that's their flavor of spin, the Democrats also lie and promote models that both increase taxes AND funnel money to insurance companies.

Both flavors of spin are targeted at the same result, increasing profits for the big private medical industry at the expense of the citizens. It doesn't matter which rhetoric you buy into, they are just different spins on the corporatist agenda. There is no populist party in the United States and if there were they'd get no substantial mainstream media coverage or if so popular it couldn't be avoided would be a Ron Paul comical and dismissive spin on their coverage because the mainstream media is run by massive corporations.

If you pay attention you will see the "two parties" are divided on very very carefully chosen lines.

Actually most massive organizations do exactly this. In the private sector you will find two or three major competitors with the same major stakeholders. See pepsi & coke, visa & mastercard, etc.

Sure. But neither party actually wants you to end up with healthcare. Still it's a good example.

The actual information is that we provide a comparable or lower level of care for your average person in the United States than other developed nations. The UK spends less per person providing complete health and dental coverage than the United States spends in tax dollars per capita per person while the United States provides no healthcare. We accomplish nothing but a rigged and closed healthcare system with an FDA protection racket for pharmaceuticals companies and medical equipment manufacturers.

There is nothing magical about state provided healthcare that would suddenly make private medical institutions disappear. The costs would likely go up since you'd have reduced volume but you don't have to outlaw private medicine to have public medical staff.

The actual information is that the top 0.01 percent in this nation have 90% of the wealth in the United States, while the lower 99.99% generate 100% of that wealth and that 0.001% pay a tax rate comparable to or lower than that of the lowest income bracket. It's a bit misleading to target the top 1%, that drops the threshold low enough to include many engineers, doctors, and most lawyers. Those people work for a living, there is more than enough room to target the problem group and have a more reasonable distribution of wealth (and therefore power) without impacting those people.

The democrats are better at creating the illusion that they interested in fixing these problems than the republicans. Neither group actually wants that. Obamacare wasn't about giving everyone healthcare, obamacare was about putting money in the pockets of insurance companies while lowering the bar for the coverage they actually have to provide. Obamacare was about overpaying even more. And that is exactly how a free market system works in practice, the insurance companies can afford to buy more politicians and to pay lobbiest to whisper constantly in the ears of those politicians on every fine point of every bill than those who depend on insurance to pay their medical expenses therefore they get better representation. That is no different than someone who has more money getting better legal representation, superior medical care, or a superior education.