* How well do traditional laws hold up in this new distributed, de-centralized model. In particular, if bitcoin is to take off are protection laws (like traditional currency) necessary?
* How does Bitcoin's anonymity help or hurt such a legal protection? If people decide to mess with BTC will its anonymity come back to hurt it?
Advocates of Bitcoin portray its independence of state-sponsored currencies as a feature. Why should governments do anything to make Bitcoin safer to hold (even if they could)?
Then it becomes a question of whether any technological "patches" need to be made in order to prevent subversion of bitcoin's agenda, whether the courts and govt. get involved via punishing the manipulators, regulating or banning BTC, etc.
This is shaping up to be a highly risky pyramid scheme type deal. If you get in early and strong, you can expect a high payout, but the longer you hold on, the higher both the rewards AND the risk of a total bust.
Especially since there's no laws protecting it.
There are a couple of things to point out:
* How well do traditional laws hold up in this new distributed, de-centralized model. In particular, if bitcoin is to take off are protection laws (like traditional currency) necessary?
* How does Bitcoin's anonymity help or hurt such a legal protection? If people decide to mess with BTC will its anonymity come back to hurt it?