Comment by palmfacehn

It may come as a surprise, but there were periods where taxes were contributed voluntarily or sworn under oath that they were accurate tabulations. Early Hamburg is a strong example here. There was an honor associated with paying taxes for wealthy merchants.

Alternatively, without those positive incentives towards payment, we might consider the comparative value of evading taxes and taking upon risk vs. paying a less onerous tax. From these exclusively negative consequences, the taxpayer compares the burden of compliance with the effort required and the risks of non-compliance. This is well known in the modern era as The Laffer Curve.

So I have to disagree once again. Empirically, we can see that is possible to collect taxes when there the perceived value of the services provided by the state is a net win for the tax payer. Taxes can also be collected when the burden of payment is less than the cost of evasion.

When states fail to deliver value taxpayers understandably become dissatisfied. When compliance is onerous and rates high, authoritarian enforcement measures become necessary. From this point it is easy to see how cryptocurrencies provide the kind of utility you disparage.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks", this is Satoshi's inscription on the BTC genesis block. It may suggest that mismanagement by (arguably authoritarian) central planners gave rise to the popularity of cryptocurrencies. Perhaps the reason cryptocurrencies exist is because of the incompetence or authoritarian means of the state.

There's room in the middle to disagree, but the extreme case you've made here reads as authoritarian. Especially in the context of the article.