>> Aside from its very public history of being an absolutely abysmal store of value You're talking about something different now. Namely the effects of all the

>> Aside from its very public history of being an absolutely abysmal store of value You're talking about something different now. Namely the effects of all the speculation, and for example governments figuring out if Bitcoin poses enough of a threat to them that they need to make it illegal, and so on. Will they shut it down? Will they not? Will they first make some money with it, and then shut it down? The point is that the wild fluctuations in Bitcoin's price you see are not proof that it's not a good store of value. It could well be, after stabilizing, if it ever does. A good store of value is something that could serve as a good medium of exchange too, like gold for example. Gold was used as money for ages, exactly because its characteristics made it suitable for that. It can't be printed by pressing a button somewhere, it's divisible, durable, and so on. Bitcoin has some of the same characteristics, and that's why it might well become a widely used medium of exchange. I bet something like it will. Central banks are not actually helping you. If you have a sound currency, it can't be printed, and central banks can't meddle with it. You see, printing a currency devalues it. If the pool of currency in circulation grows faster than the pool of wealth it can be exchanged for, then the currency loses some of its value relative to the wealth available. >> Bitcoin's sole value as a currency lies in its ease of use as a back-end for transactions. Fiat currencies' sole value lies in the fact that governments force us to pay taxes in them. Otherwise we'd all be using a sound currency instead, because it would be in our self-interest to do so.