>No government would want such a thing if given a choice. However, when a country's fiat currency becomes worthless, the choice is a different one. That's true

>No government would want such a thing if given a choice. However, when a country's fiat currency becomes worthless, the choice is a different one. That's true. They then peg their currency to a stable fiat currency, or simply adopt one (usually unilaterally). They don't go for a "perpetual novelty" technology that has fundamental technical issues making it largely unsuitable for use as actual currency (as opposed to speculative store of value, or a money transfer mechanism). >As far as governments are concerned, that is absolutely correct. However, given the choice between a currency nobody controls and one controlled by another government, the former is clearly less onerous. Undoing most laws is likewise going to be "clearly less onerous" for a lot of folks. That in itself does not make it a good idea.