Except I didn't. It's funny that people see a terrorist name, immediately assume I'm playing the card that govs play, and then don't read the actual argument.

Which is exactly the same behaviour that allowed the US et al to start all this shit off in the first place, just from the opposite viewpoint.

So once again, follow the argument through and it's about the focus on bitcoin if/when that happens, not that they could use bitcoin as a bank but that everyone could see it and no one could stop it. A little bit of rhetoric from media and politicians and you'll immediately have the villagers besieging bitcoin and everyone who accepts it.

This entire thread is a great example of people only reading headlines and conflating topics. Imagine this on a US wide scale.

Think for yourselves. Read for yourselves. Use your brains.

I don't agree but at least those discussing forks or new currencies are perfectly valid in doing so and I'm sure we'll see a more anonymous coin take hold for black market and anon activities. It won't be used by legal businesses, but you'll just exchange it for btc. So what can they do?

That's my view on why any significant move on bitcoin is ludicrous.