3 ms·

nonono. namecoin is not bitcoin. you are explaining why proof-of-work-schemes are useful. that is not the question. the article (quoting Krugman) says that the

nonono. namecoin is not bitcoin. you are explaining why proof-of-work-schemes are useful. that is not the question. the article (quoting Krugman) says that there are good reasons why bitcoin might be a wonderful medium of exchange, but there is no good reason why it is a good store of value.

sjs1234 13y ago
That specific premise is false. An alternate use case does not provide a -meaningful- floor for any store of value. Tulips still have an alternate use case. I'd claim Krugman is arguing against cryptocurrency in general rather than Bitcoin specifically. The affordances provided cryptocurrency are new. It's a fair bet that will provide value. How many factors currently contributing to the value of the US dollar were in place within the first decade of its existence? I'd also claim the libertarian hopes for cryptocurrency are overblown, though they are definitely contributing to its current level interest.