I don't think bitcoin was designed to be impervious to government influence. The intention was to not be limited to a single controller, not that no controller be a government. Despite what some people think, bitcoin is not a "stick it to the man" invention
Ultimately if bitcoin is to reach the peak of a standard currency that some feel is inevitable (and some feel is futile) it would necessarily require government involvement. It wouldn't be a single government however. Monetary policy would have to be driven by a consensus of nations. That would possibly be the best (or least worst) way do do things.
None of this has any particular bearing on today's Bitcoin, if it's going to replace money it's not going to be in the next few decades. If it's still working in 50 years time, there might be a chance.
If you eliminate the noise of speculation on day-to-day levels of bitcoin, the underlying value difference between the current usefulness of bitcoin and the current trading price represents people placing bets on the likelihood of that success condition.
Ultimately if bitcoin is to reach the peak of a standard currency that some feel is inevitable (and some feel is futile) it would necessarily require government involvement. It wouldn't be a single government however. Monetary policy would have to be driven by a consensus of nations. That would possibly be the best (or least worst) way do do things.
None of this has any particular bearing on today's Bitcoin, if it's going to replace money it's not going to be in the next few decades. If it's still working in 50 years time, there might be a chance.
If you eliminate the noise of speculation on day-to-day levels of bitcoin, the underlying value difference between the current usefulness of bitcoin and the current trading price represents people placing bets on the likelihood of that success condition.