I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but this seems like a big point in the authors argument.
Isn't the removal of this flaw baked into bitcoin by it's nature?
" Besides, if bitcoin ever really started to take off, governments would either ban it or take over the system."
Isn't this pretty damn hard as well?
No, it's not. Bitcoin isn't backed by any political will of any kind. It is a sheer market. That is the author's main point. That since it is money not backed by the, hopefully, benevolent will of a state it will be subject to the whims of market makers or the panic of the crowd. I think the author of the article is quite correct in making this point.
History has repeatedly shown that the mercy of the state is better than the chaos of the market, at least over the long term. Yes, every once in a while the state will take away a punch bowl that it didn't need to take away, but that doesn't mean that their overall goals aren't worthwhile. More rarely the state clamps down too hard, but history shows that in these instances the market's ability to correct an overbearing state has greater celerity than the body politic's ability to overcome the enormous chaos of a completely free market.
History isn't even necessary in the argument though. We all get to vote. Bitcoin has already failed as a currency. It is subject to incredible moodiness and instability, which are the characteristics of a very poor currency indeed. Currency, in a well functioning economy, is supposed to be the most stable and predictable security that one can invest their wealth; in theory, it is not even supposed to be a security. Bitcoin may have made some people wealthy, but I'm not going to trust all of my wealth in it like I would American dollars.
Bitcoin has to climb up to a stable value, once.
The idea is that it will be stable once it did.
Nah. If all the govt. does is says that every merchant cannot accept bitcoin for transactions, that's enough to render every bitcoin market black.
This is a good rule of thumb, mostly because its true. I'm not sure why people have trouble understanding this (poor civics classes? too dense?) but the US govt. can do anything it physically can. Sure, it may require a constitutional amendment, but if the political will is there the govt. can do anything.
But even in softer formulations, Congress can use general welfare to get away with anything SCOTUS will let them get away with.
Luckily though, unlike everyone else on Hacker News, I actually read the Constitution and thus happen to know this line:
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
WTF does this sentence even mean. Evidence to the contrary that the gov't can't do anything? Could you give an example of such a piece of evidence?
Also TIL Disney dollar is against the constitution.