Wild times in the crypto world.
Peaks and valleys, peaks and valleys.
This is nothing new, where Bitcoin spikes, and then gives most of it back and finds a new plateau. But this is the first time the mainstream seems to be sort of watching.
For years people have talked about how the government will just shut it down if it gets big. (I wonder if they ever admit that they were wrong, or if they just always think tomorrow is the day.)
"The government", imo, isn't actually as boorish as the people who believe in it.
They're practical, and act within the limits of what control they really have, to get the best deal for themselves and those who pay them. (Rather than the everlasting, perfect control of everything that their supporters imagine they have.)
In practice it isn't even one monolithic interest. It's a mechanism that those with the most money and the best connections will use for whatever suits them best. Often they're coordinated or naturally aligned with similar interests. There can be dueling interests too.
Maybe in general Bitcoin is a threat to a lot of the interests involved in government. (Then again, maybe they know the fiat system doesn't last forever anyways, and actually welcome an alternative and welcome the excuse that it was "disrupted" rather than failed on its own weight.)
To whatever extent they don't like it, they also know that banning it doesn't actually make it go away. (When they "ban" heroin the point isn't that heroin stops being used, it's that you shift the incentives and make it very profitable for certain people. That's the point.)
There isn't actually any precedence of governments "banning" things that threaten entrenched interests. Rather, they immerse themselves in the new landscape and bend and manipulate it however they can.
(Use things that are real and true and tinker with it rather than write the script yourself and expect people to keep following it. It's a more longsighted way to maintain control.)
So it's more realistic that they'd regulate and maybe lowkey have a presence in the mining scene and things like this, rather than they're going to try to make it go away.
In a sense the whole "blockchain technology" thing is a misdirection and a soft version of an attack on Bitcoin. (Whether or not it's planned or deliberate.)
Any time somebody says "Bitcoin meh, blockchain technology is good tho", you have to stop right there and ask them why. Why is it good?
I'm pretty sure nobody would be able to articulate a reason. Because the real reason why it's good is that it allows people to coordinate and express value without depending on a central point of authority. So then they'd also see why Bitcoin is good.
They're just saying things, and don't actually have a reason in their head.
And at first I didn't mind or think anything of it. Like, please, welcome to the tent! I'm not in the business of telling people not to like the blockchain.
And part of me still feels that way.
But then the other side of the coin is.. you do only need one primary ledger, and so it's kind of missing the point, to like "blockchain" but not like Bitcoin.
Note: "Bitcoin maximalism" isn't my point here. Obviously I wouldn't hold Steem if I felt that way. I'm agnostic as to whether there could be a few coins who serve a real purpose and exist alongside Bitcoin. The point is that I like Bitcoin too, that I'd never be able to marginalize Bitcoin while I advocate "blockchain" in general.
The decentralized ledger that connects the world onto one network of economy is the actual point here. (It doesn't 100% have to be Bitcoin, but then Bitcoin would be the one that's pointless.) That's the game-changer. "Blockchain technology" doesn't do a whole lot besides that.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln shouldn't care too much about the play.
"Blockchain technology" isn't this thing that you apply to conceivably any area of life and it improves it. Most things don't need a blockchain.
So this adoration of "blockchain" (1) distracts from what the real purpose and implication is and (2) bloats up the value of thousands of pointless or scammy tokens and ICOs, which in turn artificially creates something of a pinata to throw wacks at and imply that there's an issue with Bitcoin.
So now the space is a bit more chaotic and confusing than it would be otherwise.
So if you wanted to "attack" Bitcoin, or at least ward it off for as long as possible, rather than directly FUD Bitcoin (which may just cause people to consider whether what you're saying is correct, and have a blowback effect that's the opposite of what you wanted), it seems like a pretty good strategy to actually hype "blockchain".
At least now you confuse some of the energy into dead-ends and scammy things, and the egg shell takes longer to peel. Classic misdirection.
Just food for thought!
What I'm describing could also just happen naturally, without any help from above. But if you were an enemy of Bitcoin, it seems like it would probably make sense for you to encourage this mistake.
You'd be better off doing that than trying to "ban" it.