4 ms·
> It's not useless even if it is volatile. On longer time scales, it is not volatile but consistently appreciating in value, which makes it a great savings vehi
by hhmc 5y ago
> It's not useless even if it is volatile. On longer time scales, it is not volatile but consistently appreciating in value, which makes it a great savings vehicle.
Either it's good as a currency, or it's good as a savings vehicle.
You seem to be confused about which line you're pushing
- Geee 5y agoA currency that isn't a good savings vehicle is a bad currency. In a free market, people will choose to use a currency that doesn't lose its value.
- hhmc 5y agoThis just isn’t true, else everyone would put their pension in USD.
- Geee 5y agoI'm not sure what's your point. USD is inflationary, that's why it's a bad currency / bad savings vehicle.
- hhmc 5y agoI'm not sure what your point is. You keep goalpost shifting. Bitcoin clearly is unfit as a currency as it stands. If you're will to argue that an asset with a 3% daily vlt is viable as a currencty, I don't think we will be able to find common ground.
- Geee 5y agoThere's no such thing as viable currency. For me it works fine. I'd rather choose higher volatility with long term value appreciation, rather than lower volatility with long term value depreciation.
- hhmc 5y ago> There's no such thing as viable currency. Of course there is, for example it would be necessary for it to be useful as a medium of exchange. Which, bitcoin certainly isn't. I can't purchase, for example, >50% of the basket of goods that comprise the CPI with bitcoin. Sure, you can argue that anything which can facilitate more than 0 exchanges with more than 0 counterparties is, at least ephemerally, a currency. But if you're arguing that, you've already lost.