I'll start by echoing another comment below -- Bitcoin is immune to direct central bank intervention. > ... what is bitcoin useful for right now? ... all my mo

I'll start by echoing another comment below -- Bitcoin is immune to direct central bank intervention. > ... what is bitcoin useful for right now? ... all my money is tomorrow BTC ... what the bitcoin crowd _is_ using ... I would contend that this isn't the right question -- value right now is not based on utility right now; it's based on an estimate of discounted future utility. Unfortunately, that future utility includes a component of "price momentum", which may or may not actually exist, or may just be in part a self-fulfilling limited-timeframe prophecy (or a bubble, as some call it). There's even, in some quarters, worries that onroads to cryptocurrencies may become more difficult in the future as AML laws start to focus on it, so better to have some on hand so that when the "one true cryptocurrency" emerges, you'll be able to get in on it despite your government's reluctance to allow it. > What makes BTC today better than my cash? Today, I would say the immunity to politically-directed manipulation of value. As compared to "cash" as in folding paper money that you hold on your person, I would say it gains the advantage of being electronically transferable, and arguably, easier to secure. As compared to "cash" as in money on deposit in a demand deposit account, it offers the liquidity of cash (no bank to tell you "you can't take out that much right now), and immunity from other failures: bank runs do happen (rarely), banks do fail (less rarely), "identities" are stolen (not rarely at all), and accounts are closed because of violations of terms of service or because of suspicious activity (which may just involve transactions over a certain dollar amount). If you're sufficiently paranoid, concerns about a cause you support being labelled as "terrorist" and having money laundering protections slapped on it, or a country that you have relatives in being labelled a "rogue state", or even (true story!) a neighboring country being artificially branded a terrorist state to blackmail them into building a wall. > isn't it a misnomer at this point to keep calling it a currency? Maybe. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... I mean, this ends up just being a semantic game where we're fighting over the definition of the word "currency". If it makes you feel better, call it a crypt o'currency, which is its own thing distinct from currency; it just shares some attributes of currencies.