I had not realized the Copernicus connection, and I suppose that sometimes little facts like that could be tests about how much of an expert someone is on a topic.  I am merely familiar with the general principle that people tend to be incentivized to spend their most shitty money first and to HODL their money that is most likely to go up in value or to maintain its value.  Makes a lot of sense, and surely many of us have become more enlightened on such topic from the diptwats who are suggesting that we should strive to make bitcoin more spendable as if making bitcoin more spendable should be amongst our primary concerns - which does not make logical sense, and even people who are without much education are going to gravitate towards following gresham like behaviors if they have any kind of appreciation of the comparative value retention attributes of any kinds of monies that they hold.   Of course, some people give it no thought, but anyone who consciously attempts to achieve the most bang for the buck will frequently subconsciously engage in these kinds of behaviors without anyone teaching them... about gresham or having to explain any of the underlying theories.


For sure there is already a certain high degree of victory, even if bitcoin were to get squashed into the ground from here on out, the idea has been birthed and the idea has also been shown to have some functionality, so in that regard, there is a certain segment of the population that have come to better understand how money works including being better able to distinguish between sound money practices and not so sound money practices, and these kinds of ideas get into the heads of a variety of people the longer that bitcoin stays around, which assisted to become more powerful by Schelling point principles.



I don't know about fitting like a glove, but there can be a tendency for matters to kind of work themselves out in a way in which individuals gravitate in a direction to make things happen, and some of the nice things about bitcoin happens to involve how a lot of the built in incentives have a great way of playing out, which causes a lot of people to conjecture that the balancing of incentives with code and difficulty adjustments and proof of work and monetization came from a lot of deep thought, rather than merely getting lucky, even though there might have been some aspects that were lucky, too.


I hate to go down the road of speculating about their various plays, whether it is government, financial institution, rich people because there are a combination of things that they can attempt, yet part of the problem still ends up being that bitcoin gives hardly any shits because it has been designed to prepare for these kinds of attack attempts, so lucky for us that bitcoin has gotten off of the ground, and the longer that it exists the stronger it becomes, getting back to Schelling points  - so surely, attacking bitcoin would have had greater likelihood of success to nip it in the bud 5 years ago or more - so even if there might be some successful efforts to burden people more and more and to try to attack bitcoin in various regulatory  or prohibition ways,  there might be success in getting the price to go down for even extended  periods of time, and so in that regard there will develop stronger underground systems and even wacamole issues because even governments are not able to cooperate to attempt to get what they want because they do not agree upon what they want, and that is part of the genius of the incentives built into bitcoin including the fact that some governments might need to begin to attempt to develop their mining and acquisition of bitcoins rather than trying to bash bitcoin or create nonsense competition projects that are  likely to get swallowed by BTC in the longrun anyhow.