7 ms·
I wouldn't call it successful as a currency given its state at the moment either. I would say that much of the reason for that is because of the perception of
by Lerc 1y ago
I wouldn't call it successful as a currency given its state at the moment either.
I would say that much of the reason for that is because of the perception of the currency that is widely held. It's not much good because people think it's not much good. I bought a few things online years ago with Bitcoin and it worked pretty much the way it should, but most of those places that accepted it stopped . Mostly they stopped due to the public perception.
I do wonder if it has a chance to become useful once it is old enough to not be considered interesting, and the idea of holding something while it increases in value dies.
- wqaatwt 1y agoEven if places accept bitcoin they almost universally price their goods in $/€/£/.. meaning that bitcoin is only a transfer mechanism. So it’s not really a “currency” in that situation either. I mean if somebody accepts precious metals, jewels etc. as payment in lieu of actual money that doesn’t mean those things suddenly become a currency.
- hx8 1y agoWhen I said "most successful" I didn't mean it was a complete success, just that this is the best we've done without a state. Currencies are hard, history is full of them failing. Maybe when an asset is liquid enough, it becomes like a currency.
- wqaatwt 1y agoGold/silver worked reasonably well for thousands of years and unlike bitcoins they functioned as an actual currency. Even if you can pay for stuff with bitcoin it’s not a currency until people actually start setting prices based on it. > liquid enough I’m sure I could find people who would accept Apple’s stock in lieu of actual money, that wouldn’t make it a currency