I'm not at all saying that if you have one thing that works - don't innovate. I am saying "don't adopt." I'm already a bit gun-shy about using any parallel example, as they (the examples) will be picked apart, and not the actual topic - but here goes... If you have DVDs (and DVD-R, etc) and someone invents VHS, then it shouldn't be the next big thing. Especially if VHS was invented for creation and distribution of child porn. Yes, you can record Night Court on it, too, but the quality is just not as good - so why adopt? I know it sounds like I'm trying to sit on some moral high horse here, but I guess what I'm saying is I just don't see the point. I think the only people who should be using bitcoin are the people who need to use it. Everyone else should carry on with using something else or driving further innovation.
Your analogy is flawed. Bit coin was created as an economic experiment, not solely so people could buy drugs off the Silk Road or anywhere else. The crux of the biscuit here appears to be that you think bit coin was created specifically for nefarious purposes when it was created as an economic experiment. It's much more akin to VHS created and then someone decided to use for CP than your example where it was created with that use in mind.
OK, perhaps I did have some bad intel on the why it was created. I thought I had read that somewhere. Maybe that was why Silk Road was created, rather than Bitcoin? Or maybe neither, but that's why one or the other got "picked up." I can't find the article now (I read it over a year ago.) Anyway, I'm still baffled that Bitcoin is getting any traction in the mainstream. Digital fool's gold.