Skipping over most of the 'working', some of the concluding remarks are the most poignant for me:
Although in practical terms virtual currency schemes are only an evolution, from a conceptual
point of view they do present substantial changes when compared to real currencies and payment
systems. Firstly, conventional actors like financial institutions, clearing houses and central banks
are absent from these schemes.
A warning to the bloated banking sector? The banking lobby getting told where they can stick it?
virtual currency schemes:
...
could have a negative impact on the reputation of central banks, assuming the use of such systems
grows considerably and in the event that an incident attracts press coverage, since the public may
perceive the incident as being caused, in part, by a central bank not doing its job properly;
So, if Bitcoin appears to be working
better than the rest of the financial system, it might "accidentally" go viral? What kind of incident?
do indeed fall within central banks responsibility as a result of characteristics shared with
payment systems, which give rise to the need for at least an examination of developments and
the provision of an initial assessment.
A pretty clear claim that Bitcoin falls within the ECB's realm of responsibilities.
