> Two benefits are that bitcoins are inherently deflationary and transactions are anonymous. Given the recent slew of fiscal crises and increasing concerns abou

> Two benefits are that bitcoins are inherently deflationary and transactions are anonymous. Given the recent slew of fiscal crises and increasing concerns about online privacy, these are two strong points in bitcoin’s favor—or whatever future crypto-currency arises. This was the funniest thing to read for me. It flies in the face of two of the biggest complaints I see about Bitcoin (the third being the "it has no inherent value, not even status as legal tender"). You mention that Brett Gordon is disagreeing with many people when he claims that being deflationary is a benefit. Even in this same article you see the exact opposite being said: > Unfortunately, as those familiar with Paul Krugman’s writings on liquidity traps know, Bitcoin’s known and finite supply dooms it as a workable replacement currency. So there's two completely contradictory positions on that issue. But also on the anonymous transaction issue. Every bitcoin transaction is quite obviously public, so that right adjacent to this quote is Chris Robert's: > The bubble can just grow and grow, so long as... the fundamental lack of anonymity doesn’t bother anyone. So in the same article we have economists saying built-in deflation and anonymity are benefits of Bitcoins, while others say deflation will kill any chance of viability as a currency and that Bitcoin has no anonymity. What's a person to think, besides that many economists don't really understand Bitcoin and are probably just as speculative as the people buying Bitcoin at $250 several days ago.