Hi,
I read the OP with interest, considering argument #1. It is also the most important threat I see concerning BTC, and those who don't see it are blind. It doesn't mean fatality, but this power really exists.
Here is an interesting point of view about the future of money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8JhmQ73Vq8I'm more optimistic than OP concerning the future of BTC, but it is not my purpose in this reply, I just wonder how can you compare BTC users growth to Facebooks ? Both of them take place on the grid but IMHO the comparison stops here. Facebook is free and does not require (apparently) involvement. You sign in and you let uncle Sam doing the rest, while BTC by essence is costly, you have to pay for it, then to take care of it, and take the risk on you. Big difference isn't it ?
drgyoza
drgyoza Facebook was used as an example of growth, you can use google, paypal, Apple for example. Apple actually requires you to spend money on it. Most things that are going to "take over the world" have high user growth within the first 5 years. I was just comparing growth in general.
Also, their press is positive, Apple was like it's the best thing since the wheel. Facebook was like, it's so amazing I can talk to all my friends everybody get on facebook.
What is Bitcoins press? It went to $1000 today it's a shitty bubble, the government is against Bitcoin, all the press is negative. This influences the normal potential users, hence why that argument was made. It's about growth generally speaking, if after 5 years you only have 3M users something is seriously wrong, and most likely you won't be gaining many more even if you double those numbers. You either grow insanely or you don't.