>Bitcoin is useful against capital controls. True if any only if, and the degree to which, possession of BTC is considered desirable. If it's a sought-after 'c

>Bitcoin is useful against capital controls. True if any only if, and the degree to which, possession of BTC is considered desirable. If it's a sought-after 'commodity'. Otherwise it's just a decentralised simulation of money, no matter how many desirable qualities it simulates. MMO games have simulated internet money, and various transfer features too. People who got into BTC early, did so because they wanted it to fulfil its potential as a better sort of modern money. They knew nobody else would accept it as payment at the time. They hoped it would become valuable in the future... and it has. The early adopters essentially gave it its initial kick start by role-playing as if it was money. I don't know if this basis of playing pretend can be a solid foundation for an invented money's value. It seems too ephemeral. It's based on belief in belief, ultimately based on pretending. Maybe it would be beneficial, for the sake of stability, to invent a powerful mythological origin story for BTC. Maybe that's what they are trying to do with this still-mysterious Satoshi avatar.