How many marketing firms do you think would tell you that "ubit" is a better brand than "bit" for a unit of currency?

In order to gain adoption, a "startup currency" relies in large part on its brand.  see: every shitcoin.  If bitcoin had been called humbuggers or some random shitty name, nobody would use it.  And since we clearly will be using units much smaller than 1 bitcoin for every day purchases, that smaller unit needs a good brand.  

You know what else is mainstream?  Federal reserve notes.  

It doesn't matter how mainstream bitcoin becomes if it becomes another fiat currency controlled by centralized institutions in the process.  Circle issues IOU's to bitcoin.  IOU's can and will be manipulated unless we reject any and all centralized bitcoin institutions / bitcoin "banks".

Satoshi also used the term "collectible" to describe bitcoin in 2010 - a term Szabo used in your quote. 

"Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock. (They’re) more like a collectible or commodity." - Satoshi

He's not that young, and he's been writing about economic theory for quite some time.  You can see his blog here:  http://unenumerated.blogspot.com

In 1993, he also described how to maintain a pseudonomous identity online, which is seemingly working pretty well for him to date:  http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1993/10/msg00759.html

Hal Finney, David Chaum and Wai Dai all wrote their own e-cash software by themselves.  Nick Szabo also wrote a rough one in 2005 that he called Bit Gold.  Bit Gold was described almost identically to bitcoin.  He then got someone to help him finish the code in 2008, and launched it as Bitcoin under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto.  

If I ran the best charity in the world, would be ok for me to knock on your door and force you to pay for it under threat of imprisoning you?  If not, then how do you justify permitting the "government" to do this?

I've actually claimed capital gains before.  One entrance, one exit.  I subtracted two numbers.  

Nobody on the entire planet has ever been required to claim capital gains on every purchase they've made.  Nobody is buying coffee with stocks or gold ingots.   

I also can't use a torrented file to buy a coffee. 

For some reason I don't think satoshi had "regulation" and "taxation" in mind.  Bitcoin was about undermining government monopolies over the world's currency.  We have failed miserably thus far.  

Totally legal and totally unusable

It's not just "on paper" when a coffee shop needs to spend a few thousand dollars on accounting every year just to be able to accept Bitcoin.  

Regulation is great... as well as needing to spend $4 worth of effort to buy a $2 coffee.

Speaking of trying to nip things in the bud...

The US Government now oversees all possible entry points into Bitcoin from US Dollars, even localbitcoins / peer to peer sales over $300.  (see: florida bitcoin sting).  They now legally have access to the identity of everyone who purchases over $300 worth of Bitcoin with US Dollars.

The US Government also now requires you to report every Bitcoin transaction as a capital gain or loss.

So every time I spend bitcoin, I need to:

1) Keep track of how much fiat I used to buy the bitcoins originally
2) How much the item costs in fiat
3) Figure out when I bought what bitcoins and when
4) Calculate the capital gain based on the difference between the item and the purchase price of the coins
5) Repeat steps 1-4 every time I spend Bitcoin
6) Calculate my total gained / lost from every transaction at the end of the year.  
7) Report this amount on my tax form, including proof of every transaction in the event of an audit 

If this procedure is not followed, you are subject to being locked in a cage.  

So to buy a $2 coffee, I need to expend more effort than the coffee is worth.

Where is the outrage?  What many have feared is currently taking place, and it's like nobody gives a damn.  They are stopping Bitcoin in its tracks before there are enough people outraged by it to create any backlash.

Let this be noted by everyone calling for "more regulation", and to "ignore the libertarians".  We are losing.  Badly.  

The US government banned bitcoin without banning bitcoin, and people in the Bitcoin community are applauding it. 

This is what happens when the libertarians "lose". 

I'd say the odds are a little better than that

It's one individual, and his name is Nick Szabo.  

And I also think now would be a great time for him to come out and denounce the way that the Bitcoin community has all but abandoned the principles that Bitcoin was founded upon.  When Nick sees statements like this one by Jeremy Allaire of Circle, he's got to be doing a giant facepalm in his secret lair:

"I’m not so concerned about the vocal, early-adopter community of anarcho-libertarians, who may be frustrated or disappointed about [all bitcoin transactions being subject to capital gains tax]"

Everything bolded.  And the fact that accepting Bitcoin now becomes extremely burdensome for businesses, forcing them to implement a completely new accounting mechanism just to accept Bitcoin.

The problem is, Bitcoin will never become mainstream and function as a currency if this regulation stands.  The chicken just ate the egg.

Let's say Bitcoin gains a significant level of adoption and the price stabilizes and plateaus for an extended time. 

From an investment perspective, it makes MUCH more sense for a very wealthy investor to start a new crypto, mine a ton of it, and market the hell out of it.  Is it not only a matter of time before we see this happen?