> many economists think of money as something that is simultaneously: (1) A means of payment (2) a unit of account (3) a store of value. Just some further note

> many economists think of money as something that is simultaneously: (1) A means of payment (2) a unit of account (3) a store of value. Just some further notes on this. The word "is" is a bit ambiguous here. To clarify, those are "properties" of money instead of what money "is made of", like a knife is sharp, while what knife actually is made of is steel. In the same way, (modern) money is debt. To have money existing means that someone owes someone something. Now, of course, bitcoin is not debt. Nobody owes you anything if you own bitcoin. You may just be lucky to find a greater fool to sell it. And yes, someone might think it makes a better money because of that. Unfortunately for bitcoin, just like what makes a good knife is that it is sharp, a good money that is a good means of payment, good unit of account and good store of value. And by any reasonable measure bitcoin is utter failure on all of those.[1] So I find it hard to believe bitcoin will ever be money in any reasonable sense. Being good at those would require the value of money to be relatively stable against other goods, and in the current world that is just not going to happen without some mechanism actively managing the value of the money. And bitcoin has no such mechanism available by definition. [1] If you believe in the "store of value" story, please give me a reasonable quantitative measure for judging how good a store of value an asset is, and by using that measure, compare bitcoin to more traditional store of values and show that bitcoin is not an utter failure.