Yup, I agree. Also, I think it's worth mentioning, in an ideal world, a lot of legislation and policy making should be made based on academic research, which is why so much money is invested. Personally, I believe academic research into Bitcoin is a "must" for it to be accepted as a currency.
A "must"? Bitcoin is already accepted as a currency! The services of normative academia are not required.
So in your 'ideal world', you are the de facto ruling class. Nice.
Another casuality of passive grammar.
The OP said academic research into Bitcoin is a must for it to be accepted as a currency but neglected to mention who he was talking about.
Who won't accept Bitcoin as a currency without academic research, and why is their acceptance relevent to Bitcoin users?
Hi,
I apologize for not making myself clear, however, the discussion on these forum leads me to believe that people here already understand the pro's and con's of Bitcoin legislation. Personally, I thought the first sentence talking about legislation and policy making clearly implies that the people I'm talking about are the legislation and policy makers. I'm neither a legislation nor policy maker. I'm not necessarily saying academic research will make them listen, just that I believe in an ideal world, academic research should at least have some influence on legislation/policy making (although I would say that - academic research is my job!)
Making Bitcoin accepted by legislation and policy makers (and it therefore being legislated etc.) is hugely relevant to Bitcoin users. A key reason why a lot of organizations don't use Bitcoin is because it's not seen as legal tender. This causes legal issues with tax and general money management. E.g. the EFF don't accept donations in Bitcoin any more for this exact reason.
Thanks again for the input and feedback, communication has never been my strong point:)
Dom.