The original argument was about governments making bitcoin de facto illegal. That's quite different from a deliberate attack.
As said, I agree that bitcoin may be heading for trouble, I just disagree it will happen through legislation.
And more generally I disagree it will happen by a third party deliberately disrupting it (either via legislation, the 51% attack or by other means). For a simple reason: A collapse of bitcoin (for any reason) will inevitably spawn a new, more resilient crypto-currency. The exact opposite of what the attacker was looking to achieve.
As said, I agree that bitcoin may be heading for trouble, I just disagree it will happen through legislation.
And more generally I disagree it will happen by a third party deliberately disrupting it (either via legislation, the 51% attack or by other means). For a simple reason: A collapse of bitcoin (for any reason) will inevitably spawn a new, more resilient crypto-currency. The exact opposite of what the attacker was looking to achieve.