Is Bitcoin too good to "ban"?

[Ares]

Note: when I say "ban", I mean pass legislation or use some other means to effectively prohibit Bitcoin usage, purchase or other acquisition.

Let's take Fincen, for example. The heads of Fincen are clearly aware of Bitcoin and probably understand it entirely. With that in mind, they undoubtedly see its potential and I'd bet that they all own some (as most people who understand Bitcoin do). For that reason, it is in their financial best interest not to ban it.

Morally, you would have a very tough time convincing yourself the potential for bad outweighs the potential for good with Bitcoin and so it is in their moral best interest not to ban it.

Both of these reasons also make bribery or other corrupted means by those who are threatened by Bitcoin far less effective.

This applies to everyone in a position to write anti-Bitcoin legislation.

Short of a "ban", a superior currency will inevitably prevail.

[1715199419]

1715199419

[1715199419]

1715199419

[Ares]

It is too good to ban for everyone that doesn't benefit directly or indirectly from central bank machinations.

So the question, then, becomes: How many of those people are in a position to actually "ban" Bitcoin, and do the influences to do so outweigh the benefit from adopting it?

[zoinky]

Best thing to do is to wait it out and see what the other guy does. 

[Ares]

It is too good to ban for everyone that doesn't benefit directly or indirectly from central bank machinations.

So the question, then, becomes: How many of those people are in a position to actually "ban" Bitcoin, and do the influences to do so outweigh the benefit from adopting it?

I think that will be a difficult question(s) to answer.

I was looking more for a "not many" and "no"