When I argue for stronger, easier anonymity, I am often retorted with the point that Bitcoin will simply move to jurisdictions that favor it.
However this misses the point that a global map of mishmash regulations is antithetical to a widespread fungible currency. Precisely what makes a currency desirable (and thus makes it a currency because everyone accepts it) is its ubiquity.
The takeaway from this is that no crypto-currency can become ubiquitous, because Bitcoin will be mishmash regulated (some jurisdictions better than others) and a strongly anonymous coin
wouldn't be accepted by everyone.
And this favors a fiat global currency (or regional currencies) gaining ubiquity. Which is surely what will be the end result.
So if you ask me, I'd rather have a strongly anonymous currency that can support
extremely lucrative black markets, versus the above futility of Bitcoin. Come on, the writing is on the wall. Deny it all you want. I don't care. Go ahead now and do your typical damage control.
