Quote from: Shneebly on December 18, 2013, 05:05:13 AM

A year ago I would have paid in Bitcoin no questions asked. But all the effort it would take today to acquire replacement funds to replenish my wallet anonymously I decided just to pay in FRNs.

The same pressure you reference as pushing merchants towards "BTC based production" will stop buyers from purchasing these goods.

I agree, the same pressure would impact both, but people at some point or another will have to make the sacrifice to encourage BTC sales, by which I mean setting up point-of-sale technology and ultimately discount for BTC. An effective tax through licensing BTC exchanges would (forcefully) impose a discount for BTC "buyers" who barter for it at lower rates than the exchanges. For example, a web developer who also wants BTC for herself could either 1) take her USD earnings and pay the added cost of revealing her identity to licensed exchanges or 2) pay the added cost / forfeit the potential gain of USD sales in order to sell her product for the BTC she desires. This is the phenomenon that would create a difference between BTC "sellers" and "buyers." A BTC "seller" would be able to acquire the web development at a lower cost with BTC.

Merchants will have to make this decision voluntarily in hopes of establishing themselves in the BTC market in the future, or, if regulation were imposed, to simply acquire BTC. If they don't choose to discount their goods in BTC, this is an indication they are relatively satisfied with their fiat based revenue. In which case, fine. Ultimately, the free market will always win out. The other scenario is driven by the crash of fiat. In which case BTC "buyers" refuse to accept fiat for any good or service and only accept BTC. This, on a whole, is very very bad bc so many people who have fiat stored are essentially broke if their fiat acquires nothing. This is of no fault to anyone but the fiat managers who destroyed their own currency. However, that scenario also drags down everyone else, even BTC based producers bc there is less demand volume bc BTC penetration was not encouraged earlier on by BTC based producers.

Another way of simply restating my original message "bitcoin needs regulation" is "Bitcoin is a threat to fiat currencies. If fiat managers do nothing to hamper bitcoin and protect their fiat then they are only increasing the potential of destruction of their fiat currencies, which is a real loss that will affect everyone, BTC economy included." Absent any rational effort by the Fed/USG to protect their own interests and the interests of USD holders, it would be wise for BTC producers to take steps to encourage their customers to adopt Bitcoin in order to be in a better position when fiat finally implodes. I think Bernanke's reckless wind up of a massive hyperinflation potential aligns with the apparent inaction against Bitcoin. It is intentionally designed for maximum destruction.