Its clear in Satoshi's early work that the final purpose of this experiment is to replace "dishonest" fiat money. He already knew that if BTC was to replace government-issued currency, banning and harsh fight would happen - this is why he created a system resilient to any kind of banning, and that's why he chose to be anonymous (and he "chickened out" hard when Wikileaks accepted BTC donations, he thought BTC was not ready yet for that kind of attention - he was mistaken).
Summing up: Bitcoin was never intended to be an "investment" or a "virtual commodity" - it was meant to be an potentially world-changing experiment that could disrupt the world current power balances.
Real bitcoiners know this. Real bitcoiners know that the final purpose is not to exchange BTC->fiat, but BTC->goods+services.
Real bitcoiners know that a "bitcoin ban" is not only *expected*, but it is also *needed*. Firstly and foremost, because BTC has YET to prove it is resilient, and that's a final proof. Secondly, because it will just mean that Bitcoin is going in the direction it was designed to go.
This "scare tactics" just shake out weak hands that see in BTC just a way of making a quick (fiat) buck. I know that most of the old timers wouldn't dump their coins if there is a global ban - would you?
This distinction between "real bitcoiners" and (presumably) the wrong kind of bitcoiners is too crude for my taste. And the question "would you dump all coins if BTC becomes illegal" is too simple as well (I wouldn't, at least not immediately, but I would keep my eyes open if there's an alternative showing up).
The "virtual commodity" and "absolutely free currency/store of value" aspects are, in my opinion, deeply intertwined. You won't get one without the other.
That's why my own mental representation of BTC resembles that of the Internet as a whole: largely unregulated, but not entirely so. Traceable and governed as far as agencies can, and if there's a strong interest (hur dur terrorism), they can do so quite effectively. Finally, ways to *circumvent* such monitoring and governing if you're technically savvy enough (Tor network comes to mind).
All in all: no. I simply disagree with your spirited and idealistic, but also somewhat naive analysis of what BTC is and will be. It won't be entirely unregulated. It won't replace dirty fiat in our live times. But it will give those who know how to make use of it new means of channeling wealth around regulations, just like the Internet gave you that ability with respect to "valueless" information.
SIDENOTE: sorry masterluc if this turns out too offtopic. let us know if we get on your nerves
I'm not saying what Bitcoin
is or what it
will be - I'm just stating what Bitcoin was
designed to be. It's all in Satoshi's work, and it's a matter of fact.
As he originally conceived Bitcoin, its
illegal by nature, as it is an attack to the current financial system.
Then, many things can happen: the Bitcoin Foundation can collude with Gov's and implement redlists and whatnot, or it may enter in a deflationary spiral, or maybe POW reveals itself unviable unless there is constant growth for eternity (which is physically unlikely). Summing up: I don't know what it
will be, but I know what it was
designed to be.