I believe most democratic country will vote in favour of bitcoin, eg. letting people speculate with it freely and use it somewhat freely (you still have to pay tax).
I think that you're fond of bitcoin (the protocol) but you clearly don't understand the social ramifications of what you're talking about: Democracy and anonymous, decentralized currencies do not play well together :-)
My true colors were there from the beginning, if you cared to look[1].
No, ban bitcoin is a huge mistake IMHO. BTC is a great innovation and has extremely interesting features. I already mentioned transaction speed elsewhere.
I believe that we need to wait and see if volatility stabilizes at some point. Then I'd like to see an easier way of conversion from currency-to-btc and back.
That said I'd never put the faith of a country to BTC, but sure as hell I'd like to have it around and use it as I see fit (either as an asset or an investment). But relying grandma's pension on BTC? That's unethical to me (and stupid).
But "crony capitalism" is a much more accurate way to describe the US right now than "Democracy", so why do you choose this over that?
I think it's a very weak argument to say "this is the closest we can currently get to X, therefore it can be said we have X". What we have now, as I said above, can be said to be closer to other things than it is closer to democracy. We should then pick the thing we're closest to, out of all the things we're close to. And that is not democracy.
BTC could allow an anonymous party to control a currency, given enough % of that currency in circulation. Compare that to the current system. You may not like it, but currently the central banker (who creates policies for the good of his country) is appointed by the governments (ECB/FED).
The later sounds extremely more democratic to me. Now BTC is owned mostly by techies and small, adventurous investors. Once countries and investment bankers step in, hell will break loose. You don't want to seriously depend on something that you don't have a clue who controls.
> BTC could allow an anonymous party to control a currency,
How, exactly? They can't control the minting so I'm not sure what you mean by "control". The Fed is already an anonymous (because no one is personally responsible) party controlling the US dollar.
> currently the central banker ... creates policies for the good of his country
This is highly debatable. You can't just say that and pretend it is indisputable. I reject that premise; in my eyes the way the Fed handles money only shows their misunderstanding of what is value, how it is created, and so on. So no.
> The later sounds extremely more democratic to me.
So let me rephrase it. You barely vote for the US president (since it's indirect) and he/she and their team then appoint some other people to manage the only currency they will let you use in their country. This is what you are saying is "extremely more democratic" than some other thing? I'm not even arguing that Bitcoin is democratic, it only needs to be more fair by allowing choice in order to be better than the Fed's USD. If you like democracy so much you should be fostering competing currencies so we can vote by (literally) putting our money where our mouth is. The old saying applies here, if the Fed's USD is so awesome then why do they need to force us to use it?
> Once countries and investment bankers step in, hell will break loose.
How so?
> You don't want to seriously depend on something that you don't have a clue who controls.
Which is why people are desperate to move away from the US dollar.
>> BTC could allow an anonymous party to control a currency,
> How, exactly? They can't control the minting so I'm not sure what you mean by "control". The Fed is already an anonymous (because no one is personally responsible) party controlling the US dollar.
By buying the largest chunk of bitcoins. Simple as that if you don't understand you clearly don't have a clue about what you're talking about.
You're making rounds without saying anything: The FED is there to ensure stability. You don't agree with their policies for a variety of reasons, I'm all with you. But what you're promoting here has nothing to do with democracy or fairness. It's more of a jungle where the big guy eats the small guy for lunch.
The old saying is stupid because everyone who studied monetary policies knows that currencies are enforced upon population (taxes).
I already explained what a player with big % of BTC can do to manipulate a free-from-regulation market, as BTC is. But it's really elementary, if you know how stock markets work.
Who is desperate and moving away from the USD? You seem to switch from micro-view to macro-view in no time and back. You're talking about average Joe again or Iran/China/Russia for example? Because average Joe and China are not on the same level currency-wise.
I tend to be skeptical when instead of counter-arguments I'm told "it's so elementary I won't even tell you". Some quick research shows experts are still debating whether the 51% attack is a real threat. I also don't know that comparing Bitcoin to the stock market is fair, as you didn't offer an argument for it. They seem different to me.
Also, you're saying that it would be a really bad thing for a currency (such as Bitcoin) to suddenly become controlled by an anonymous party, yet that is exactly what instating the FED did to the dollar. But then you say the FED ensures stability. So I ask, do you believe the only way to achieve stability is through maintaining the worst possible scenario for a currency?
I don't believe in democracy and so of course I'm not promoting it, and I don't think it is associated to fairness as you imply - I see it more as a tragedy of commons. I do believe what I promote is fair because it is free of coercion and it encourages engagement with others and with one's community, leading by example, and so on.
People are desperate, people that lost their savings because of the government playing money scientist. They might not know that what they want is a money that cannot be manipulated by decree, but they seem to recognize pretty well why is it that their savings are gone.
And your view of economics in this micro/macro false duality is what might be making it hard for you to see what I am talking about. At what point does exchanging value for goods and services need to be divided into two different things? I don't see that.
What's wrong with speculation and evading government interference?