This guy continues to kill it. He's got the energy I don't have:
That has been my position since Feb 2013. However, the quote is incorrect: the risk is not that governments can more easily curtail Bitcoin usage while it remains a niche system, but simply that some other cryptocurrency will fill the gap and it won't have a limit and it may have a few fundamental design improvements such that it is unassailable by a crippled Bitcoin.(2) The current bottleneck of 3-7 transactions per second worldwide itself represents a kind of centralization risk. Mike has argued very convincingly about this in his blog, saying that probably the biggest risk to Bitcoin right now is this bottleneck, because adoption by an insufficiently high number of users could mean that the powers-that-be could still try to strangle bitcoin which it's still in its cradle, if they wanted to - without enough of an outcry to really stop them, simply due to this arbitrarily (and dangerously low) 3-7-transactions-per-second bottleneck.
Glad to hear it went well Peter. Can someone let us minions know when it's published online for us to view.Haha thanks, Cypher.
Gmax and Co. have been throwing punches at me since that paper come out. I thought it would be fair to throw one back at the end of my talk.
Don't you think in case of debt implosion the UST will be also in trouble?@BldSwtTrs
[...]
molecular once asked where all the dollars might go in a severe debt implosion. I think UST's.