[ridaj]

That article is interesting, but I have to ask about the conclusion:

> Beyond the financial case for Bitcoin, its rise as a non-sovereign store of value will have profound geopolitical consequences. A global, non-inflationary reserve currency will force nation-states to alter their primary funding mechanism from inflation to direct taxation, which is far less politically palatable.

Isn't this all backwards? In the past, when it was politically inconvenient not to be able to inflate money, governments abandoned gold-backed money and went to fiat. Wouldn't one assume then that the possibility of such profound geopolitical consequences is precisely the reason why governments will not let it become so important?

[tim333]

The conclusion seems wrong as you say. Governments still seem perfectly able to print money in spite of bitcoin and gold existing as alternatives.