There is two kind of point of view on the subject about Bitcoin and the power the government will have on it.
One side of the story comes from Milton Friedman in 1999
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYD17h6hlCsHe expected that what he calls "e-cash" but what we now call "crypto" will shrink government power by making it harder to collect taxes. He is delighted of it, he is libertarian.
On the other side Martin Armstrong thinks Bitcoin will not survive
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/20/the-bitcoin-hearing/, because government will not use allow it if they can't taxe it.
Armstrong believes we will suffer from deflation crisis, thus, pushing people to buy bitcoin is acting like a pump of $, which will provoke, along with taxes, a shortage of $.
However, I think that despite the $ deflation caused by taxes, I think people will be incentived to use BTC, and not $ as a medium of exchange. And that, despite of any $ deflation.
Sadly, Armstrong does not elaborate very deeply into this subject, nor why he thinks the gov can stop bitcoin.
Sure I expect government to protect their eggs. But I don't think that any of their regulation can influence bitcoin on the long term.
Provoking a $ deflation would plumb Bitcoin's value, but I don't think this will offset the incentive of the benefit of trading without a tax middle man.
What do you think ?
