I agree. It was already pretty obvious that Bitcoin and other such crypto-currencies are disruptive to central banks. But now the world's 3 largest powers wanting to ban it, is very similar to how the largest incumbents react to disruption - they try to fight against it as long as possible instead of adopting it. And they lose everytime.
>But now the world's 3 largest powers wanting to ban it, is very similar to how the largest incumbents react to disruption - they try to fight against it as long as possible instead of adopting it. And they lose everytime.
Actually they've managed to suppress tons of things.
In fact, there are tons of disruptions that never made it. Except if, in hindsight, one calls disruption only the things that actually won in the end (in which case it's a tautology -- of course all disruption wins in the end, if disruption is only what wins in the end).
So the "they lose everytime" is a little too optimistic.
A tsunami is highly disruptive to central banks as well; it can happen with no warning, and it usually causes so many simultaneous insurance payouts that the entire financial industry is impacted. So banks should adopt the resulting floods?
If we're talking dubious similarities in behavior, I will point out that the people passionately supporting Bitcon seem to have a very cult-like behavior, where they defend the cause even to the point of justifying away its obvious flaws. As a True Believer, they fail to see how absurd their justifications have become.
