We should also carefully distinguish: * Bitcoin proponents desire that bitcoin work like the earlier currency example, where an innocent actor who receives sto

We should also carefully distinguish: * Bitcoin proponents desire that bitcoin work like the earlier currency example, where an innocent actor who receives stolen currency at part of some transaction for a good or service is protected from having to return those bitcoin. * Whether an innocent actor in that position is in fact liable or protected in that scenario is fundamentally up to the state(s) involved and their legislative choices. This (as with the centralization of mining, and exchange prominence) seems to be another example where Bitcoin is -in practice- far more subject to the powers of states than its proponents respresent. I postulate that few if any states will see any advantage in granting that kind of protection to bitcoin transactions, as states have incentives to ensure their own currencies can be transacted without rigorous detective work, and do not have these same incentives with bitcoin.