I'm not sure you can code your way into having a monopoly on violence.

NB: Weber's definition of government (which your quote misstates, so to speak, as is often the case), is that the state is that entity which has the monopoly on the legitimate claim to violence. It's legitimacy, not violence, which is key.

For the longer explanation, see: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37366751>.

That said, legitimacy is a political property, and one which cannot be attained through purely technical means. To that extent I agree with your critique.

To state the obvious: If anyone can code his way out of something it is someone who codes.

If enough people want something badly enough, when existing governing structures will bow is a question of how many people.

You should pretend your code isn't good enough. That way you can own the problem. You will get plenty of help from those making things worse. Empires crumble eventually.

That was the obvious issue with all the blockchain smart contract stuff that was getting pushed previously. Any time it interacts with the physical world the blockchain goes out the window the moment on someone on the ground decides they don’t agree with it. Your cryptographically signed deed means nothing and can’t evict someone off the land.