But you do recognize that people are buying Bitcoins using the day-to-day authoritarian tools, right? This is the equivalent of popularization of denims as a statement of rebellion from the 1970s; or the prevalence of Che Guevara tees in capitalist nations. Gives you that warm fuzzy feeling, but, in reality, it is no different from anything else.

Of course. As bitcoin isn't a viable currency and no one is really conducting btc->btc transactions, paying salaries in btc or anything else, the only method of utilizing them is going through the traditional, already existing banking infrastructure.

The only part that I may slightly disagree with is that unlike the case of denim or Che shirts, there is at least a theoretical endgame that escapes the traditional framework.

Note that I don't think bitcoin will reach that endgame, but I think that is a slight distinction.

Replying to the reply to my parent comment, since I seem to have reached HN's nesting limit.

Forms of control are not always very direct. Let us, hypothetically, say the big state actors jump in to take control of 80% of the available bitcoins available, under various entities, they have control and authority and little accountability.

This is already a reality in some equity markets, where retail investors are under 20% and rest of the players are institutional players. It will take much lesser than what it takes to move a large equity market, to move BT.

There is a good reason why there is no global barter system. It simply won't work at that scale. A global barter system -- that would be truly subversive.