Absolutely no way something like that would work with Bitcoin in it's current form. Can you imagine a whole economy trying to adjust to Bitcoin's whims every few minutes? Plus interfacing with the rest of the world would be near impossible, like trying to force an HDMI connector into an AV socket
Why do you think this? Can you please explain it to me, why won't it work good?
I can't really see any problem if I don't mind about banks that can't control it..
1. Bitcoin is way too volatile. For individuals and small companies it is manageable but for a whole country economy to revolve around Bitcoin would be pure insanity.
2. Satoshi owns more than 1,000,000 BTC, can you imagine what would happen if he decided to dump?
3. The Bitcoin network is lawless and relies on trust to function. Anyone owning 51% or more of the mining hashrate would have considerable amount of control over the network. Such a country would have to keep its fingers crossed that it survives the day.
4. Anonymity would also be a problem. Transparency is essential for government, people and the rest of the world to work seamlessly together.
1. Bitcoin's volatility will decrease with a biggermarketcap.
2. Satoshi will never dump. At this point is reasonable to asume he lost those coins. He would have dumped already.
3. Laws can be applied, which why regulations are going on. 51% attack is not a problem, it's highly overblown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncPyMUfNyVM4. Cash is more anonymous than Bitcoin.
You seem to have missed 'Bitcoin in its current form' in my initial comment. Even so, the points you make are not entirely correct.
1. Volatility has got nothing to do with market capitalization. Coin distribution, number of users and demand are some factors that directly affect price. If the order books from the various exchanges are not able to seamlessly absorb a dump of say 1,000,000 BTC (hint hint
) you gonna see a massive crash.
2. This claim/statement has no substance. You'd be insane to build your country's economy around this assumption.
3. Other than a slightly arrogant Antonopoulos, that the threat exists is enough. That he doesn't see any way for such an attack to work does not mean that there isn't any.
4. Agreed, hard cash is more anonymous than Bitcoin. But you're ignoring the second part of point 4 where I clearly explain why anonymity would be a problem. Buying stuff anonymously in a shop with hard cash is one thing, Microsoft sealing a deal with a few bags of Dollar bills is another. Banks link money to real identifiable people in a way that is not possible with Bitcoin in it's current form.
It should compete with the $US / Euro / Pound 
