At some point, probably if bitcoin becomes adopted wider, the fact that bitcoin establishes a mechanism for citizens to enforce their right to financial privacy is going to have to be made clear, in a PR-friendly manner or otherwise. Intrusive governments violating their citizens right to financial and communication privacy are prone to destabilisation, from past history, so I think this is the most "destablising" aspect of the technology. It would be good if Jon Matonis could weigh in somewhere about a good approach of how this news should be broken to the establishment so they don't freak out too much.
I just noticed this thread so I thought I would post here as well to contribute to the overall discussion started by Gavin. Here is my post from the Press Hits thread:
Bitcoin is a nonpolitical decentralized cryptocurrency with user-determined anonymity and transaction irreversibility. Most people are happy transacting on the Internet with VISA/MC/AMEX when it comes to plane tickets, hotels, gifts, etc, so bitcoin is not really a breakthrough for spending on the Internet. Terrorists, pornographers, and drug dealers already use $100 bills but that is not the fault of the
innocent anonymous $100 bill and they haven't banned the $100 bill (yet). Bad guys use the roads and phones, too.
Money going digital does not mean that we have to give up any of the features that already exist with the paper $100 bill. Yet, that is the way things are being positioned by the establishment --- "give up the privacy and untracability elements of the $100 bill and we will give you the nirvana of a digital, cashless society."
This is such bullshit! MOA, I'm not sure if this news about privacy can be broken to the establishment in a delicate way, but it can be based around the common theme of liberty (i mean, come on, who doesn't believe in liberty?):
Regarding the media, I believe that bitcoin needs to be positioned as a way to
restore financial privacy to the individual:
1. Secrecy does not equal
concealment, but rather secrecy equals
privacy;
2. Large-scale private value transfer should not be impeded across national boundaries (money laundering is a pejorative term);
3. Individuals should have freedom from confiscation and immoral tax levies;
4. Individuals should have freedom from money being used to track identity;
5. Individuals should have protection from the depreciating nation-State political currencies.
Then, using general themes like PayPal freezing accounts and reversing legitimate transactions will be certain to resonate with Joe Q. Public. Then, if you really, really want to get everyone on your side, mention how the Jews under Hitler would be labelled as 'money launderers' today simply because they attempted to move their wealth to Austria in order to avoid confiscation. The Jews in Hitler's Germany certainly would be bitcoin advocates.
