Also, Peter Surda's thesis on Bitcoin which draws heavily on Austrian economics is here.
Silas stops by here to pester every once in a while, and one thing he used to pester me on was Bitcoin. He seemed to have it in his head that I would have a problem with it. I have no idea why. Why would I have a problem with private currencies? I see no obvious reason for me to. I think he just thought I wouldn't like it because he did like it. If a libertarian likes something Daniel Kuehn couldn't possibly like it!
I get this with private spaceflight, private roads, and vouchers as well. Sometimes someone that really doesn't know me follows this sort of logic on constitutionally limited government too (I like it, so Daniel must not!).
But it raises an interesting point about these "A such-and-such perspective on X" statements. Bitcoin is largely a "libertarian thing". As a result, a lot of the criticism has been by non-libertarians on the blindspots of libertarians (most notably, concerns about bubbles and questions of the elasticity of the currency). That's understandable because these criticisms come up in the context of an adversarial dialogue.
But what is a general non-libertarian take on Bitcoin? J.P. Koning offers one from the perspective of the Fed. Any other ideas? The most obvious reason why a Keynesian would like Bitcoin is simply that it's more money out there. Sure it's inelastic but right now we don't have to rely just on Bitcoin. And presumably Bitcoin could be made elastic and still maintain all its other desirable properties (just make an announcement that all owners of number X will on such and such a date also own the title to Bitcoin number X + 21 million).
I don't have strong opinions or expectations about the future of Bitcoin. What I do know is that I think what's going on now is great, but I also know that I'm personally sticking with dollars :)