> A deeply and clearly thought out argument for why immutable blockchains and code as law are terrible ideas, yet the conclusion is that crypto-anarchist technologies are a net good.

I think there's an important distinction between things like bitcoin and the technologies described in the article. The technologies mentioned in the article all take some sort of action without ongoing human input.

Things like bitcoin (and other crypto-anarchist technologies), on the other hand, preserve human agency. I mean, there's a lot of automation on the mining side of bitcoin, but the currency side allows trades to be initiated by human beings. Bitcoin preserves human agency so well that people using it to commit crimes is one of the arguments against it.

Now, you could argue that what I'm describing is a bad thing, or that the tradeoffs are unfavorable, or what have you. And there are several reasonable arguments in this area. But I think the distinction between technology that responds to human input and does work for us and technology that runs autonomously and makes its own decisions based on rules set up at a prior date is important here.