I think he may actually be coming from a "You guys made your bed, now lie in it" angle, though couched in the language of bitcoin evangelists to disguise the sarcasm.
I would sympathize with that, if not for the fact that buying into bitcoin does not require buying into ideologies.
Or he's sincere, in which case I disagree for the same reason.
That makes it sound punitive. I just think it would be a fascinating sociological experiment to let Bitcoin evolve in a way that would allow anarchist ideas about the viability of markets in the absence of centralized power to be empirically tested.
I apologize if I misread your intent, you just don't really seem like a "fuck it, let them have their fun" kind of guy.
Anyway, I don't think that declaring bitcoin to be out of touch by the law would be any better an idea than saying that Idaho should do their own anarchist experiment. In both cases you have people who either do not buy into the ideology getting caught in the crossfire (as well as people who buy into the general idea but do not believe that the prerequisite conditions have been met, or do not believe that the required complementary technologies exist yet.)
You would at least need to give those people an opportunity to get the hell out of Dodge^W Idaho. Even then though you would be unjustly displacing those people. Imagine if you purchased a house in Idaho, only for the federal government to declare Idaho to be a lawless land set aside for all the 'sovereign citizens' to experiment with. You would not be to pleased.
I would sympathize with that, if not for the fact that buying into bitcoin does not require buying into ideologies.
Or he's sincere, in which case I disagree for the same reason.