OK, got your point. But I think, you're missing one important point:
Let's say you've got N BTC now. You would be cheering because after such a hard fork you will have N oldBTC plus N newBTC. You're wrong if you think that this makes you more wealthy. If the majority uses newBTC, then this will mean that the real value of your oldBTC will pop to close to nothing, because no one will want to buy those coins because no goods can be legally bought with them anymore. Of course, some illegal trade could continue using oldBTC. But this will be a small fraction of the original market (For those, something like zerocoin would be more attractive anyway).
You still don't get it. Something like this might cause a setback and create a great buying op that is true. However in the long run oldBTC would recover its value and more and newBTC would be inflated to nothing just like every other fiat inflation currency.
Probably the real value of newBTC will also drop because all the hoarders see no point in hoarding anymore as an inflationary policy will be applied to newBTC.
Probably t The real value of newBTC will
also drop
by design because
all the hoarders see no point in hoarding anymore as an inflationary policy will be applied to newBTC.
Fixed that one for you.
As I suggested it should be called "UnCoin" since the supply would be manipulated and controled by the UN in your ideal scenario.
I just want to make clear that this is not "my ideal scenario".
I'm not judging anything of this with my liking or disliking. All I say is what I think could happen.
Not true. You made the following judgment:
Moreover, those governments would first need to agree on who should be given the power over BTC money supply. I hope it will not be the fed but an international entity (with a UN mandate?).