> On the other hand I suppose the existence of Silk Road is not sufficient to drive prices up

Right now Bitcoin has a controlled monetary inflation of 30% a year. Its user base isn't growing. It's actually shrinking if you count the speculators as "users".

I agree with other comments, right now it might be better to hold dollars. Also gold, despite it's depreciation lately.

I think Bitcoin will survive. I can see the African diaspora using it in the near future because it's cheaper. Bitcoin won't go up in US dollars at least until some 1st world country devaluates its currency severely, and people start looking for options.

By 'African diaspora', do you mean Africans in different countries will use BTC to transact with each other across borders? Or is there some wide-scale emigration of African people out of Africa and across the globe I wasn't aware of?

I mean the African emigrants that send money back home to their families.

>As much as it pains me, because probably the price will fall even further, I'll keep some BTC around just in case...

Swiss Francs, CAD, and even USD are much safer if stability is your concern. If the Euro indeed collapses as you seem to fear, you may even find yourself making gains.

Or the classic hedge currency: canned food and ammo.

(Maybe not the ammo, in Europe. Get a bat.)

Plus alcohol and heroin for barter.

I doubt you're going to want to barter with people that desire heroin... Everclear is a good one, though.

The Swiss Franc is, from a historical perspective, probably the safest currency in the world.

Switzerland is an ideal banking country in geopolitical terms. It borders with three major economies, but is also an easily defendable mountain fortress. It has remained largely undisturbed because it would simply cost too much to invade.

That's why, for hundreds of years, it has been a banking mecca. Europe has been wracked by war for centuries, during which banking houses are periodically plundered by invading armies. But Switzerland with its defensive advantages and long history of neutrality rises above the noise. If you're a rich European, the safest place to park your money in the past 1000 years has been Switzerland.

Switzerland is a "banking mecca" because of its privacy laws, which encourage the corrupt from around the world to park their money in Swiss banks. I would posit and say that the Swiss system actually _encourages_ (large-scale) corruption around the world.

And what happens to the money when the dictator dies? Do the Swiss banks return the money to the people on their own volition? Of course not.

I admire Swiss privacy laws, but they should be applicable only to the Swiss citizens. Switzerland has no reason to shield non-citizens and criminals from around the world.

The privacy laws are part of the attraction (though they're not unique), but they're not totally impenetrable. Show the Swiss government decent evidence that funds in a Swiss bank are the proceeds of a crime and those funds will be seized. But why should the Swiss do your homework for you?

Requiring citizenship in order to obtain secrecy is, if you think about it, not really going to work. How do you prove that the account holder is a citizen if you don't know who it is?

Neutrality means, necessarily, that you will deal with scum. But it also reduces your chances of involvement with devastating wars. The Swiss have made their choices.

If you open a bank account in the US (and many other parts of the world), you have to show identification. Why not the same in Switzerland? The Swiss can ask for ID when opening an account; if the account holder is a Swiss citizen, give her/him all the privacy you want. If s/he's not, then reveal the accounts when that country's government asks.

Alternately, the Swiss can tell each country how much money their citizens have in Switzerland (in aggregate).

Again, why should the Swiss do another country's homework? Enforcing someone else's laws is not their job. They will honour judgements or warrants issued from the benches of most countries, but they're hardly going to just give up secrecy because somebody somewhere is annoyed at them.

Neutrality requires secrecy. If you favour one group with disclosure and not another group, you're no longer strictly neutral. You have to treat everyone identically or it no longer works. That means that you are the refuge of scoundrels and a bulwark of liberty. The Swiss have decided entirely reasonably that that's what they want.

Well, the way I'd phrase it is that the Swiss have realized that a sense of morals shouldn't get in the way of making a lot of money.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

The Swiss desire peace. In their history they've suffered from some stunning little civil wars. In order to obtain and retain peace, they have amongst other things decided on a policy of strict neutrality. They can in part uphold this because of their geopolitical position in Europe -- an almost perfect natural fortress. It is easy to defend and they can keep themselves in food and water more or less indefinitely.

As a consequence of neutrality and defensibility, their country has natural competitive advantages in banking. Complaining about the Swiss being good at banking is like complaining about the USA being good at farming. In both cases natural features and political history have pretty much made certain outcomes more or less inevitable.