The discussion seems to have originated from this thread, where Chris Pacia, lead developer behind OpenBazaar, shared his new essay on how anarchy would work: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/alx5ld/wrote_an_essay_hopefully_not_too_off_topic_here/
There’s a rebuttal thread shortly thereafter which laments the anarcho-culture of the btc/bch community:
“Anarchy is becoming synonymous with BCH and r/btc in general, and it is not a good look. Espousing anarchistic principles is a means to this community’s isolation, NOT bitcoin adoption.”
“Adoption goes hand in hand with marketing. And I think the association with anarchy (like RV and CP speaking at Anarchapulco) is straight up bad marketing .”
In response, Roger Ver, an infamous BCH evangelist, starts a thread saying that “If you believe that anarchy is NOT the answer, then the only other option is to believe that some people get to use violence against peaceful people who haven’t aggressed against anyone. There is no middle ground.”
As the debate turned increasingly meta with each new thread, it seems to have evolved and centered on one key question - do crypto enthusiasts have to be anarchists?