My sense now is that lots of reporters are taking it even more seriously than before the hackcrash, but at the same time I think a lot of the public is pretty dismissive of it. I think the response after the hackcrash badly damaged bitcoin's reputation for most people. They saw the reports, and came away thinking, "Ok, so that bitcoin thing is over". A lot of people probably don't even bother with news about it since then. It's just noise.
True. Bitcoin has scars.
Pretty deep ones, I think. The positive side of that is that it gives the developers and the community more time and breathing room to work through some of the serious obstacles to wide scale adoption. I think all the hacks and thefts bought bitcoin and good 5 years of fairly tepid adoption. I don't anticipate a flood of investors/users sufficient to hold the price much above where it is now. We could certainly see some spikes in the next few years that approach or possibly exceed the all time high, but I'm very skeptical that there will be enough money and use in the system to hold.
I think one of the deeper scars is the EFF's stance on it.
We can add the Python Software Foundation to the list of those citing the EFF for not supporting Bitcoin.
(from Jesse Noller - one of the PSF directors)
Although... it was naively and crudely spammed by Bitcoin fans from reddit - so that overenthusiasm is perhaps partly to blame! (embarrassing!)
Given that bitpay allows free transaction processing for 501c3s, without the need for the entity to touch bitcoins directly - this objection is pretty lame.
I'm not intending to open up yet another argument about EFF here - I understand why *they* choose not to accept it - but I think their published stance is taken as a more general reason for non-profits not to accept Bitcoin donations - so it's an ongoing thorn/scar on Bitcoin.
I don't think the EFF even understands the chilling effect they continue to have.
Sad for an organization that is otherwise so cognizant of issues around behavioural self-censorship.
