When are we going to see a change in the rhetoric? This isn't Bitcoin's disaster, it's wholly Mt. Gox's.
A lot of bitcointalk users make mention of their wealth in general conversation, believing that their pseudonym protects them physically. It's not unreasonable to think that somebody who has lost a large amount of funds might act irrationally and decide that stealing from or threatening a prominent Bitcoin community member is a solution.
I'm speculating of course, but I would be very scared if my more of my information than my email address had been in that leak.
As a theoretical parallel, imagine if a small island nation decided to reimagine themselves as a hub for international banking. They loosened regulations, provided incentives for banks to open up there, and generally tried to disrupt the world of money movement.
A bunch of banks open up there, of varying levels of quality. One takes the lead, becomes the most visible brand among the worldwide public, and then gets robbed of all of their depositor's money. Not only does it get robbed, it turns out that their security was stupidly lax.
Yes, that lead bank is the one that actually screwed up, but in what world isn't that going to reflect poorly on the entire island banking system? Or at least, how is it not going to inject an element of fear into the entire model?
You are right in saying it’s not a BitCoin disaster: it will trigger massive changes in the currency, just like Silk Road’s closing has triggered a legitimation of the tool.
As for rhetoric: all publicity, even bad, is legitimation this is a worthy interest to look into; business magazines like blood, but their prefer victory in adversity. I promisse that you’ll have enough “How we step out of MtGox rumble and built a competitor to Visa” soon enough. Remember ‘Web 2.0’? that actually was the shortest version of that story, told by O’Reilly. You’ll have a similar catchy name for what BitCoin will become soon enough; my money is on an international payment system with lower fees. The tax-avoidance angle was as lame as only ultra-liberalitarian can be; the drug angle seemed to have missed both the decriminalisation trend, and the whole ‘Every transaction is recorded forever, publicly’ part of the protocol; the funky price chart is a sin of youth. It could become a (long-term) reserve for value, that has been the secondary angle through-out, but I don’t see it: I believe that should remained reserved for ventures, talent and fine wine.
It is wholly Mt. Gox's disaster, in the sense that they alone caused it and are responsible for the consequences.
It is Bitcoin's disaster in the sense that these events impact the Bitcoin ecosystem, and are (could be) a disaster for Bitcoin adoption as a whole.
But a lack of regulation still doesn't make this Bitcoin's disaster. You're doing a great injustice to those of us that did lose money to assign blame to any party other than Mt. Gox.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Do some reading on what financial life is like for most people in a pre-regulation world. Presumably the post-regulation one wouldn't be terribly different.
One could imagine a world where the government doesn't regulate, it only provides guidelines that all people can use as a framework or template for the self-contracting they do with potential risk.
So what do people have to do to "be more cautious"? If both the biggest and smallest Bitcoin exchanges are getting ransacked, then what does cautious even mean?
This phase in bitcoin history would be less painful if there wasn't so much hype driving the price up. There's going to be a lot of bugs, hacks, and developers learning how exchanges actually work in the real world, so it'd be better for bitcoin if that maturity phase happened under calmer circumstances where less money was at stake.