11 ms·
> To be successful, money must be both a medium of exchange and a reasonably stable store of value. And it remains completely unclear why BitCoin should be a st
by defen 13y ago
> To be successful, money must be both a medium of exchange and a reasonably stable store of value. And it remains completely unclear why BitCoin should be a stable store of value.
So maybe BitCoin isn't money? We already have something that is a reasonably stable store of value but is not a medium of exchange (gold), so why can't we have something that is a medium of exchange but not a reasonably stable store of value?
- ubernostrum 13y agoGold is no longer widely used as money, but in the past it was, and was quite successful as a medium of exchange. His argument seems to be that if you want something to be genuinely useful as money, it has to do both reliably, and BitCoin only seems able to do one.
- defen 13y agoIn the past yes, but I'm talking about today. Gold is a stable store of value that is not really used as money (at least in the U.S.)
- pathy 13y agoGold is also a lot more volatile than most currencies, which in turn makes it less suitable as a currency than dollars or euros. A trait gold shares with bitcoin. The volatility makes it terrible as a currency, not to mention the expected rise in value. That makes BTC even worse as a currency - there is no sane reason to spend bitcoin if you believe in the concept.
- ubernostrum 13y agoAnd I don't think you're disagreeing with him. I think you're trying to say "well, this other thing that doesn't get used as money anymore also doesn't fit his definition of money" and then implying that this somehow disproves his argument. When, in fact, it lends support to his argument.
- defen 13y agoI'm not saying it disproves his argument, just that BitCoin could theoretically be useful even if it's not money. Which is sort of tangential to his point - I'm suggesting that the money angle is perhaps overrated or a red herring.