None of the items in "Bitcoin’s Advantages Over Traditional Money" are without significant caveats: > Bitcoin’s supply is limited to 21 million coins... Until

None of the items in "Bitcoin’s Advantages Over Traditional Money" are without significant caveats: > Bitcoin’s supply is limited to 21 million coins... Until it's not. There are already discussions at the highest levels of the Bitcoin community to raise the cap[0]. Also what are forks and new coins if not new currency in circulation? The supply of "bitcoin" doubled when BCH forked. The supply doubled again when BSV forked. > Low and predictable inflation rate. See caveats above. Also the inflation rate has appeared to have 0 impact on the price of BTC so far, so it doesn't appear to be a meaningful metric. Payments for goods and services using BTC are almost always denominated in fiat with BTC being used as the medium of exchange (eg a seller wants $50 for some pills but accepts payment in $50 worth of BTC). BTC's inflation rate is meaningless in this scenario. > Lack of a central authority. This makes Bitcoin resistant to censorship and voluntary manipulation of its parameters. This is arguably somewhat true. However, there are very few meaningfully sized Bitcoin miners, and it's not unreasonable to assume a single miner may have or be able to have >51% of the hashrate if they desired. The core development team is also fairly small with a relatively small number of people and organizations controlling what ships. As for censorship: exchanges censor bitcoin addresses and manipulate (eg lose, socialize losses) balances all the time. As long as bitcoin is beholden to fiat for its value, it's far from censorship proof. > Low transaction costs and acceptable processing speed. "acceptable processing speed" is laughable from a retail transaction perspective. "Low transaction cost" is arguably somewhat true, but there's also times of fee volatility as well as a times of high risk if you don't pay enough fees to get processed quickly. Resubmitting transactions with higher fees is possible but complex and imperfect. > Security and irreversibility of transactions "Security of transactions" is arguably true in the technical sense that the PKI protecting a transaction is so far unbreakable. However that's just one attack vector: it's untrue and meaningless for the vast majority of financial attack vectors. Sure double spends are exceptionally hard, but theft is rampant, loss due to technical error/bugs is common, and then irreversibility is a liability not an advantage. [0] https://twitter.com/mhluongo/status/1092559017178734594 https://twitter.com/mhluongo/status/1092559017178734594