i don't think their number is that big, maybe it looks this way because they are more noticeable. for example we can never count how many P2P trades are taking place but we can always know how much volume a centralized exchange has.

a good question. but it is hard to answer.
different governments have had different view of cryptocurrencies. some government like Russian care a lot about traceability, the more blockchain analyzers pop up the more friendly they got. they don't seem to care that much about control.
governments in some other countries like Japan, Switzerland,... don't seem to be so strict about either control or tracing. they respect privacy more.
governments like US want full control of everything and invade privacy of everyone.
this means if what your scenario happened, it would divide the world more.

another thing to consider is the stage of adoption. if bitcoin had reached a good adoption percentage (a lot more than it is now) then there isn't much any government could do in that scenario. they would have to accept the reality that they have lost control. but at lower levels we might see hostile behavior. like those 7 countries that have banned bitcoin in early days when nobody in their country even knew about bitcoin.

Agreed, and there was not a Github repository shared in the article to follow Dark Renaissance's progress. However the message and its idea are still very much valid, I reckon. What was the attitude during the beginning? How is it different in 2020?

Today the attitude is to celebrate the acceptance of banks instead of overthrowing them. This might only be part of the stages of attitude in the cryptospace, however hehe. It might change again.

Nice to see a woman with a degree in philosophy (same as myself) having interest in cryptocurrencies! However, I don't share nearly the same views. For one, I don't like advocacy of illegal activities and demonization of the government and banks. There are people who are not doing anything bad but are considered criminals, and there are banks that are considered good but which commit serious crimes. However, there are also terrible things paid for in cryptos, and the government plays an important role in organizing society (it's not all bad, and I don't think that chaos would be good). According to contractual theories (Locke, Hobbes), the state appeared for a reason and returning to pre-state life is not desirable. The state protects the rights of people to be safe and for their property to be safe. If there's no state, there's no system to appeal to.

Bitcoin really has somewhat become centralized with its secondary solution by using a central database that can be manipulated by the owner.
Anonymity has become a hindrance towards adoption, i guess we need to have alternative solution, so we can sustain our privacy while country's can safely ensure Bitcoin's reliability towards different use. For instance taxation.

Bitcoin is a symbol of free will. It is revolutionary and cannot topple bitcoin. In the past, the US government tried to topple bitcoin because it would hurt their economy and they failed. I think bitcoin is the revolution of the 21st century. It is a product of freedom and owned by man, no force can control them.

Bitcoin truly has fairly gotten concentrated with its optional arrangement by utilizing a focal information base that can be controlled by the proprietor.

Obscurity has become an obstruction towards selection, I surmise we have to have an elective arrangement, so we can support our security while nations can securely guarantee Bitcoin's unwavering quality towards various use. For example tax assessment.