Binaries may contain suspect code regardless of the license. Yet 999 out of 1000 users prefer binaries, because they are not programmers and would have no clue what to do with source code in their hands.
I can't believe this, what are you arguing here? The same question, is this something about "winning an argument"? NONE of what have you written is ANY reason WHATSOEVER to use MIT over GPL. Why are you making up excuses (ridiculous at that) for the pitfalls of MIT rather than stating why would MIT be more advantageous to GPL? There is an easy answer for that, because there isn't any rational advantage to it! Is it surprising that I'm going mad here over that kind of silly things you say?
There is really simple thought process behind this to decide this question, please answer these one by one:
1) Would you personally accept closed source software dealing with your bitcoin transactions running on your station? (in that case I'm going to send you that credit card utility I told you about)
2) Would you recommend to anybody else to use closed source implementation of the bitcoin protocol? (not yours with your backdoor to make a buck

I mean third-party software)
3) If you would not use closed source yourself and did not recommend to others to use such a software, what good is an option to fork existing implementation and make one?
See? Real easy .. I do not see any reason why would you want to fight a battle against GPL, why would you be against GPL? It makes no sense.
The only other option would be to *trust* the publisher of the software, in that case I would ask why use bitcoin at all? Its very design is centered about the idea of eliminating central authority that has to be trusted. You can just as well use regular dollars and *trust* the federal reserve and the US government to take care of your currency ... that turned out well, right? Do you want the same thing to happen to bitcoin?