Good link in your links: As I see it, BitCoins do qualify as money when they are used as currency — which they actually are — because they are present goods, t

Good link in your links: As I see it, BitCoins do qualify as money when they are used as currency — which they actually are — because they are present goods, the same way that software or an mp3 file are also a present goods. And they are useful as currency because they have good properties as a medium of exchange: They are scarce, homogeneus, difficult to fake, easy to identify (this could be improved), easy to transport, divisible, etc. The perceived utilitiy of these properties is what makes Bitcoins valuable. Purchasing power is a consequence of utility, not the opposite. It would make the BitCoins value more stable if they could be used for a non monetary purpose. Maybe some cryptographic application? I think that it would be a good idea for the BitCoin community to research for a non monetary utility for the BitCoins. As long as BitCoins don´t have a non monetary utility, Mises followers are correct when they say that if BitCoins loses its currency status, then their value would drop to zero, the question is, how much value would also lose silver or gold if they were not used as currency or store of value anymore? BitCoins are not risk-free, as nothing in life is risk-free. It´s a matter of choice. Gold has been valuable for over 4.000 years, Bitcoins? 4, and that's already longer than the Tulip Mania ;-) We'll see how it works out but it sure is interesting. http://eleconomistaprudente.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/bitcoins-and-mises%C2%B4s-regression-theorem/ http://eleconomistaprudente.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/bitcoin...