> Volatile currency isn't a disruptive new thing; many past currencies have been volatile. Who said being volatile is disruptive? > One might, perhaps, reason

> Volatile currency isn't a disruptive new thing; many past currencies have been volatile. Who said being volatile is disruptive? > One might, perhaps, reasonably argue that Bitcoin has other features which warrant using it as a currency despite its volatility, but that volatility is bad for the purposes which define currency isn't mere conventional wisdom born from ignorance of anything different than the modern dominant forms of currency. Like you said, "volatility is bad for the ..." doesn't make it NOT a currency. It just makes a "bad currency". Just like how being slow is bad for file downloads but people download files through Bittorrent all the time. It's "bad" in terms of "conventional wisdom", but obviously people are using it for file transfers, so you can't say it's NOT a file transfer protocol. It's just a shitty one. Except that with the shittiness it brings some novel benefits. I was specifically criticizing your point about how it's NOT a currency. There's a difference between "it's a bad form of currency" and "it's NOT a currency". No one is godly enough to say the latter. If people buy and sell stuff using seashells then it IS a currency, you can argue it's a bad form, but you are no in place to decide whether it is or not, since it already is.