> You actually unintentionally explained what you don't understand. Fiat currency is a problem because it can be so easily manipulated by the governments behind

> You actually unintentionally explained what you don't understand. Fiat currency is a problem because it can be so easily manipulated by the governments behind it. Just like the dollar, bitcoins have value only because people believe they have value. Your statement that at least the dollar has a government with big military behind it is exactly what the problem is that bitcoin solves. I think you misread my comment. I'm aware of the fact that people like Bitcoins because there is no government/central bank that can manipulate them. To me, that's a red herring though, the proverbial 'itch that Bitcoins scratch' for some people. I don't think Bitcoins solve any issues related to wealth preservation, and I don't think they offer any advantages as a store of value compared to other forms of wealth/value or currency that are not (directly) government controlled (at least not in similar ways as fiat money), such as commodities, precious metals, art, production capacity, etc. In fact, I think anyone holding lots of wealth in Bitcoins will someday lose all of it, in an instant. The point is, that even though there is a limited amount of bitcoins, and even though governments have no influence on the supply of bitcoins or who holds them, they can still affect the value of bitcoins in dramatic ways. For example by legislation that makes any form of bitcoin trade illegal. Or maybe it doesn't even require legislation, maybe just the threat of legislation to curb bitcoin trade will cause people to lose trust in Bitcoins altogether. Just because the government can't inflate Bitcoins, doesn't mean it cannot destroy the trust some people have in it. I mentioned military power not because I think it's a good thing, or an insurance against the depreciation of wealth expressed in fiat money, but as an example why fiat money is at least backed by something, unsustainable as it is. In times of resource scarcity or world-wide economic collapse, military power will 'buy' you (or at least some) the means to survive, not some virtual currency that nobody has a use for in times of distress. > Since there is a finite number of bitcoins that can ever be mined, it acts much more like gold than like the dollar. It acts like gold, but it is not gold. Gold is a tangible asset that has been a proven store of wealth since as long as we know about the history of human civilization. Gold is shiny, you can store it somewhere, make handy pieces out of it and and take it with you, people like holding and looking at gold, almost anybody, anywhere in the world will take gold in exchange for other goods or services. Smart governments are stockpiling gold at an accelerating rate, because they damn well understand that someday in the future dollars, euro's or yens will be worthless. Bitcoins are nothing like that. They are purely virtual, strings of bits, just like Linden dollars, or WoW gold. I think it is extremely unlikely people will ever lose faith in gold as a store of wealth, but I can imagine many scenario's where people will lose faith in Bitcoins. It will happen, trust me. The money supply and inflation/deflation thing is purely theoretical. Hyperinflation doesn't occur because governements purposefully manipulate the money supply, but because paper rectangles and metal circles are useless if nobody has a use for them. I know the same can be said about gold, but I would bet everything on gold outliving Bitcoins as store of wealth. You don't need a PhD in economics to recognize this. My advice: don't put your money in bitcoins. If you don't trust fiat money, buy tangible assets, invest in yourself, learn how to generate utility and wealth after the inevitable fiat money crash.