Topic: Bitcoin Is Not Really A Good Money - page 4. (Read 4287 times)

In most of the people bitcoin is a good form of money because it somehow represent the future of currency or the future money. So the best thing to do is to trust bitcoin because there is much more room for bitcoin development and growth.

Bitcoin is good money that changes the lives of many people for the better and I do not understand why many people say bitcoin is bad. Of course someone can use it for bad purposes, but it can be done with any other currency.

Bitcoin help us to address all of our financial needs so i considered this is a money too.If money can buy almost everything now so same as bitcoin too. It just happen that paper money is become the first to be recognized but it will be the same for bitcoin soon. If someday that bitcoin will no more value that it cannot be use to purchase anything anymore then that is the time that i will declared bitcoin is not just not really a good money but it is not a money.

Bitcoin is not really money but bitcoin is better than money in terms of usefulness and in many countries there are many who accept payments using bitcoin, so we do not need to exchange money, just we use bitcoin

Seen in general indeed is not good money, and it is still not really official around the world, but after many peoples who proved that bitcoin can boost finance, i think bitcoin is one of the good ways used to earn money and give many opportunities for many people to earn money and reduce unemployment which without job anymore on their life. So bitcoin can be said a good money to everyone i guess.

I will only say that bitcoin is not a good money when it has no value anymore. How can you say that bitcoin is not good  money if some people are earning it and holding it.  As long as bitcoin has value it will always be a good money.

Well i can say that bitcoin is a good money because of the price increase is not stable but only good for internet transaction not for local transaction because its always need internet before you can send bitcoin to the receiver.. its just like a gold or sliver but the demand is really fast and the movement of the price is really increasing fast unlike gold even its in demand the price is not really increasing fast..
Bitcoin is a good thing online that you can use to buy soemthing and pay for less fee for paying transactions. i don't think that bitcoin is not a good money but there are many people are getting benefits in bitcoin..

Indeed! The transaction fees are not that big problem. With passage of time, they will decrease making all us happier. Speed of transactions is okay for me but I have come across certain threads where people have problem with the speed like it took them even two days sometimes to make a transaction. If this is the case, strict action should be taken soon.

Bitcoin is a modern currency of the future and good money. Perhaps he has some minor shortcomings in the form of high fees, but they will be covered by a rapid price increase that will make many people rich.

I know, Bitcoin is designed to be as free from central bank and politician control as possible.  It is open-source, decentralized, etc.

But if you think about it, Bitcoin is still fundamentally worse than gold and silver as a truly free money.

First things first: all of gold, silver and Bitcoin are subject to central bank manipulation by pegging.  When central banks store up enough non-state money, they can sell that money for a fixed dollar or pound price, and thus suppress any appreciation of the non-state money in currency terms.  This enables the elites to acquire wealth and power for free, by issuing state currency and debt, as long as the central bank has enough of the non-state money to fight off any 'run on the bank.'

This was the real nature of the gold and silver standards through most of modern history, that mainstream economists praised for stabilizing state currencies and economies, at that time.  (Of course, they are now firmly against the gold standard, thus both times saying the elites' system was/is good for the economy.)

That said, Bitcoin suffers from the additional problem that it's secured not by physics, but by algorithm.  Algorithms can change.  Algorithms are only guarded by humans who are subject to persuasion.  At some point, the elites will have issued too many IOUs against the Bitcoin in their vaults.  Either we increase the issuance limit from 21 million, or we get a financial crisis and depression.  I imagine most of the developers will be open to talking.  (BTW, some version of this is almost guaranteed to happen, due to the nature of the world system.  For example, all countries have defaulted on their promises to redeem gold at a fixed price.)

This is in contrast to gold and silver, where violating the limit of issuance is physically impossible (or very expensive, with radioactive reactions.)

Another major weakness of Bitcoin is transparency.  In order for the public to hold the elites accountable for their monetary actions, however partially, the easier it is to observe and monitor the system, the better.  The reality is that computer networks and data structures are not easy for most of the public to understand, compared to the age-old concept of holding physical metals.

And we know from experience that the elites take full advantage of lack of public understanding.  Besides the 'gold standard good, gold standard bad' flip-flop by establishment economists, almost every major issue of finance is distorted before the public receive the wisdom passed down to it by the media (and this includes, maybe especially includes, channels tailored to the highly educated, like The Economist magazine and America's PBS television.)  Southeast Asia in the 90s, Greece recently, and Germany between world wars were made to suffer deflation after their financial crises, and the economic justification was 'moral hazard.'  The US was allowed to print devalued money to ease the pain after its own financial crises, and the economic justification was Keynesian pain relief.  (The real reason for the differentiation was that American voters had more power to disrupt the elites' system than those other populations.)

With Bitcoin so much easier to manipulate than gold and silver, no wonder, all the signs are that the elites will promote Bitcoin as the store of value of the future.  This makes even more sense when you consider it would be embarassing for the elites to promote gold or silver instead, since their prices would have to rise to a level much higher than the last time the elites tried to fix them.  Gold has appreciated 30 time since the elites' fixed postwar price of $35/ounce, and would likely have to appreciate another 30 times before a new (de-facto) gold standard can become stable.  This does not make the elites' money look good.  Bitcoin has no such history, and the elites can claim (and likely be believed) that they are merely moving money onto a new, electronic foundation that is more stable than a totally fiat system.

As I mentioned before, the elites must secretly nurture, if not openly promote, some form of safe store of value that is totally trusted by the public.  In today's world, that can only mean non-state-issued money.  The only question is which.

Indeed! The transaction fees are not that big problem. With passage of time, they will decrease making all us happier. Speed of transactions is okay for me but I have come across certain threads where people have problem with the speed like it took them even two days sometimes to make a transaction. If this is the case, strict action should be taken soon.

Transactions fee will decrease as infra become more and more developed. Competition between different exchanges and wallets, financed on ICOs and with other venture capital should push fees down. The other point is what to do with the speed of transactions.

Oh, I'll bet that this is very mistaken...


Stocks, bonds, etc. are all based on state-issued money.  The majority of rich people spend most of their time with these, yes.

But the inner circle of power pays special attention to non-state-issued monies, for a variety of reasons, and in a variety of ways.  (See the link from my original post as an example.)

The small market cap of Bitcoin only makes it more attractive for the elites to secretly promote as
an alternative to gold for the role of non-state-issued store of value.  For one, it's cheaper for the elites to acquire and store for future use (for market manipulation, and 'cheap' is only in the sense of minimizing inflation, since the elites can print unlimited dollars and euro.)  For another, Bitcoin's price can grow a lot without embarrassing the elites, since they never tried to fix its price explicitly.  A big growth of value will help adoption of Bitcoin by the public and thus establish it as a legitimate store of value.