The use of language in the debate is important.

The ECB calls the bitcoin threat "reputational" whereas Professor Hanke, whom Bloomberg interviewed, correctly calls it a "competitive threat".
The established central banks, and regulatory agencies, may well begin a dirty war blaming bitcoin for many problems, e.g. money-laundering.

The bitcoin community should point out that "fiat currencies are being printed to destruction and inflation is a stealth tax on the savings of the hard-working public".

Best response to a dullard reporter asking if bitcoin is being used for "money-laundering" ...

.... hmmmm, ahhh, meh.

Which brings us to the giddy, pro-banking-integration spokespeople for Bitcoin that tend towards full compliance because it’s required or, worse, preemptive compliance because they believe it to be safe. What happens to their rosy world when bitcoin exchanges can no longer operate in the open without fear of State retaliation? After all, they were patiently counting on ‘railroad tracks’ and connected links with existing financial institutions to grant Bitcoin a legitimacy mandate.

Joel Bowman writing at The Daily Reckoning clearly recognizes that bitcoin’s future doesn’t depend on State legitimacy let alone low-cost sanctioned transactions:


I would add that it’s also a bet on income and consumption privacy becoming the norm over ‘reportable earnings’ and invasive transaction tracking. It’s a bet that career mobility and independent contractor businesses will eventually outstrip the growth of the corporate wage-slave population. It’s a bet that the degree of an individual’s financial privacy is selected solely by the individual and not by what the State reluctantly permits.

is that all there ever is gonna be?