Quote from: n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU on May 22, 2013, 06:49:34 PM

My clear take after this event is that that the code & network will at some point fork between those who see Bitcoin as a vehicle for political change, versus those who want Bitcoin to be sanitized into just a cheaper PayPal/SWIFT. Those two visions are simply not compatible in the long run.

I think you are saying that the two visions are not compatible in a single product. If so, I agree. I would guess that, after the fork, two viable products would emerge, say a transparent-BTC and an opaque-BTC such that anyone might routinely use a wallet of either type, depending on the transaction of the moment. "Render unto seizure" for one, so to speak, and "none of Big Brother's business" for the other. In that sense, I'm thinking the two visions could be compatible and could usefully coexist. If this kind of fork is viable, it could prevent unnecessary community infighting to make only one vision dominant.

The officially-sanctioned version could die out from lack of use over time.

Yet another approach to this stuff is to set up transactions with no privacy whatsoever - for anyone. If a teen buys a bottle of gin, the whole world can see it and if some corporation buys a legislator the whole world sees that also. Sometimes I think a perfectly transparent "money" system would be better than a perfectly opaque one. The present mix in fiat-world favors the villains most though, whether they be in government or the private sector. Duffygate anyone? (Topical Canadian joke).