Krugman and Stross base their critique on Bitcoin's libertarian appeal, as if they took the promises of a few cypherpunks as reliable predictions. Those in Kru

Krugman and Stross base their critique on Bitcoin's libertarian appeal, as if they took the promises of a few cypherpunks as reliable predictions. Those in Krugman and Stross's "libertarianism is evil" camp should take heart that some people out there think Bitcoin is a huge win for developing economies, and will cause only incremental disruption for places like the EU or US. For the rich countries: Governments have many tools in their belt before they just lie down and accept, say, universal tax fraud, or the end of monetary policy. People interested in tax policy (sometimes very) slowly come up with good ideas to reduce fraud, like putting down the SSN of all claimed dependents (which made a lot of children disappear one year, but jumped revenues), or double reporting of W-2s. They likely wouldn't just roll over if we moved to BTC. For the poor countries: A better medium of exchange, allowing cheaper remittances, easier cross border trade, or a relatively more reliable store of value than local currency is an enormous win. There are lots of options going forward. Bitcoin could be a passing fad. Bitcoin could liberate the economically oppressed while providing little more than a nice toy for those in wealthy countries. Bitcoin could destroy monetary policy and lead to barricades of wealth while destroying the capacity of governments to benefit their most vulnerable citizens. But it's not safe to make moral approbations based on picking one of these uncertain results and assuming it is inevitable (especially, IMHO, by picking the most outlandish of the three).