>Money is most optimal when it is fixed in value just as commerce is facilitated when we have fixed weights and measures. When you buy a pound of hamburger you

>Money is most optimal when it is fixed in value just as commerce is facilitated when we have fixed weights and measures. When you buy a pound of hamburger you expect to get 16 ounces of meat. But you don't pay for a pound of hamburger with 16 ounces of meat; you pay for a pound of hamburger with dollars. The dollars/hamburger ratio floats. And unless I misunderstand something^0, money isn't fixed in value; its value just happens to not change all that much, under normal circumstances. Most money is inflating; it's worth slightly less each year. This isn't a fixed value. And I agree that, yes, Bitcoin's volatility does make it less attractive to users. But that volatility isn't an inherent property of Bitcoin, but merely an effect of it being small and growing. If, in five years, the Bitcoin economy continues to grow, and there's less volatility^1, will that make Steve Forbes happy? [0] Which is a near certainty. [1] The Bitcoin economy growing might be a direct result of decreased volatility; that isn't the point under discussion here.