On the other hand, that statement has 4 citations. To modify it significantly (and have your edit accepted) you'd probably have to cite at least twice as many similarly-famous "commentators" that say otherwise. Bloomberg and Krugman are pretty big names, and there aren't that many opinion writers of their reputation that have endorsed Bitcoin.
A couple of Keynesians who believe that the economy needs a constant pumping of artificial credit to avoid coming to a screeching halt don't like a currency with a fixed limit? That's a shocker.1. There aren't as many Austrians to begin with because that's not the form of economics that colleges teach. Since government subsidized colleges get the vast majority of students, most of them are going to turn out Keynesians; because we all know how impartial and well-read most government school teachers are, right?
2. Famous economists aren't young guys. Younger/more computer adept adults are more swift to adopt or entertain the idea of Bitcoin because the idea of virtual currencies makes perfect sense to them. To pre-internet folks, it really doesn't make much sense and sounds either completely ridiculous or very risky business.
Not that it isn't risky in certain ways, but it's not just going to suddenly implode without warning. That would be ridiculous. Unless of course people believe the Discovery Channel when they talk about a mega solar flare wiping out the power grid and all electronic devices that aren't shielded by Faraday cages in 2013.
I don't necessarily disagree; the original point (and only point) I was making is that from the view of the person who was editing that Wikipedia article, most "commentators" have written off Bitcoin.
Also, brinebold, I agree -- Bitcoin itself is worth no more nor no less than what people are willing to pay for it. It's a fascinating sociological/economic experiment.
