I argue urbanism is much about walking; and I'm learning is also about speaking with people. So for there are moments when places and talking collides trough bitcoin as a way to palliate problems -recognized as bitcoin worthy to fix- and doing that on places where violence is even not that explicit *per se* can put in serious trouble to said bitcoin entrepreneurs but harming lastly and mostly innocent people within said place that is usually also the ones who needs bitcoin the most. 

pueblerino

I like to seeing it as bitcoin scaling its way towards sociability. What I fear as the *hard way* of doing it might be -talking since experience- the most violent places... before violence there are aggressiveness; and the latter could be perceived since the mere way places are build and thus 'habituated' -or dwell-  

bitcoin

Bitcoin City can/should be FOSU?

Exploring the poles of Bitcoin localism is helpful but what's likely to emerge is a spectrum of approaches. I suspect, as with most things, centralized approaches will fail on long time scales, and decentralized approaches will succeed but slow and painfully. In the short to medium term, we'll probably see hybrid approaches. 