I don't think so; witch hunts didn't exactly grow trust between people in the middle ages. Witch hunts grow mob feelings between people against whoever happens to get crushed by their collective paranoia that day.
I think the parent poster meant that the witch hunts in the 21st century related to bitcoin only grow trust in the bitcoin community that witchhunts are destined to fail.
More people see that having financial privacy is a good thing, and trust in bitcoin grows.
Annoying meta-pedant note: You presumably mean that witch hunts mainly occurred in puritanical areas, at a time in which the Renaissance was occurring elsewhere in the world.
If/When bitcoin grows as large as some think/hope it will, there won't be "a bitcoin community" anymore than there is a "USD community". Sure, you'll have communities of various sorts surrounding different aspects of the currency, like you do with any other currency, but for the most part the users of it won't really have any real sense of "community membership". I pay for things with paypal on occasion, but I don't have any sense of a "paypal community".
I think if you have much influence, people should know at least who you are. The same applies to any kind of influence, but with fiat currencies it is much easier to hide it in certain positions.
This could also have a maybe unintended consequence of increasing equality, because some people, knowing who has the most bitcoins, might act to decrease the influence they feel is too large by, for example, choosing alternative product or service to use or buy. We see this effect already with people feeling that corporations like Google have grown too big and some go out of their way to not use their services.
