Bitcoin is light years ahead of fiat money, which is still our predominate system that we use.
It is a step in the right direction and it is much easier to transact in, than precious metals currently.
Is it better? I wouldn't say that, precious metals is backed up with over 10,000 years of history, as being a safe store of value. BTC however, does not just function as a store of value, it has many other valuable applications, that should NOT be overlooked.
It is not apples vs apples. They are quite different and to simply BTC is a disservice to it.
Topic: Bitcoin Is Not Really A Good Money - page 9. (Read 4287 times)
OP has really made some valid point based on the analysis that he put forward but the conclusion in which I can add is that, most of those things he sees as an advantage gold, silver or even fiat are the disadvantage that bitcoin came to solve and nothing can be substituted for freedom no matter how lucrative and that's what bitcoin has that supersedes every other options and alternative OP put forward.
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..
My opinion is very very agree with you. BTC is real the currency of the future, with the development of the times as now BTC fits perfectly with modernization. We do not need to bother bringing a wallet or a visa card, just bring a cell phone and start to shopping. 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..
I don't think so, nowadays Bitcoin is getting accepted most of the virtual service and becoming a popular currency in the developed countries. A lot of renowned company have declared that Bitcoin could have been accepted as a transaction tool. Apple store, MacDonald, Pizza hut and so many business platform announced as like. So Bitcoin is really a good enough money at present.
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.
Great observation OP... But what you should understand is elites are always one step of the masses.
Elites are wiser than the general public. Whenever we create something new and good for the masses they always step up and taste it.
When the taste so sweet they buy it all before the masses even know about it. Don't worry bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency in the world soon the other altcoins will emerge.
Elites are wiser than the general public. Whenever we create something new and good for the masses they always step up and taste it.
When the taste so sweet they buy it all before the masses even know about it. Don't worry bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency in the world soon the other altcoins will emerge.
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.
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.
I think bitcoin is a currency that is not neccasarily easy but given time and effort can be something that can work to almost anybody with or without experience. BTC has proven time and time again that it is not easy money that some preach it to be, but it can be something that can give you its benefits if you really work hard for it. The problem with BTC I guess is its lack of educating the masses and that is why some people shy away from it instead of gravitating towards it as some people preach that this is an easy way to earn money and if they encounter any hardship they retract.
Maybe you have mistaken, I think if call Bitcoin is money, it not wrong because we can exchange it to FIAT and the value of Bitcoin not small, very high and high than gold. This is reason I can say Bitcoin really good money, but about asset, still need the time confirm.
Bitcoin's real strength is in it's disruptive nature. It can force changes in the banking sector and also in remittance services,
where there has been exploitation for years, because these giants were backed by governments and funded by Taxpayers.
It sucks as a currency, because the fees to use it is currently too high. These problems are only temporary and it might
change in a matter of a few months. {just by making a few code changes}
where there has been exploitation for years, because these giants were backed by governments and funded by Taxpayers.
It sucks as a currency, because the fees to use it is currently too high. These problems are only temporary and it might
change in a matter of a few months. {just by making a few code changes}
For me, bitcoin is good money, because it helps improve the financial situation and improve the economy of the country. Many have already noticed its positive effect and want it to develop.
Bitcoin was a good currency /money to me, because all my weekly expenses is being sustained by Bitcoin, not only that all my monthly bills also bitcoin paid all of it and the most important was bitcoin is giving me a savings for the future, particularly I believed it will become 10, 000$ or more by next year 2018 by march. So, bitcoin is obviously a good money, In fact in the other country it is legal in Japan, China, Russia and upcoming country that they will make it legalize are India and Korea.
Bitcoin is a modern store of value that will far exceed any other major store of value. Gold and Silver is just impractical in today's digital society. I fully support the deflationary aspect to Bitcoin, it ensure that its value will grow over time.
The scarcity is a large factor of the value that it has.
yes that is right that bitcoin is the currency of the modern people specially the new generation who are showing more interest in bitcoin to use it for online shopping. The scarcity is a large factor of the value that it has.
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.
I wouldn't say bitcoin isn't good money but bitcoin isn't traditional form of money. That still confuses majority of people. The whole concept was designed much different that typical currencies work and that is actualy good. The problem can happen when people actualy don't know how and for what they can use bitcoin to have the maximum benefit out of it. In such situations they get disappointed and their final conclusion is that bitcoin is no good.
Bitcoin is a modern store of value that will far exceed any other major store of value. Gold and Silver is just impractical in today's digital society. I fully support the deflationary aspect to Bitcoin, it ensure that its value will grow over time.
The scarcity is a large factor of the value that it has.
The scarcity is a large factor of the value that it has.
Me too, but the deflationary aspect is basically the same among all the non-state monies.
Bitcoin has the special problem that it is only software and data, and thus the safeguard against human issuance is not as secure.
Certainly, in the digital age it would be more convenient to have electronic money. But when going electronic compromises the integrity of the system, IMO the compromise is not worth making.
The increase of convenience generally increases the degree of trust required to keep the system honest and stable. What humans should do is not to use systems that assume their fellow humans are trustworthy. What they need to do now is to have a sound monetary basis for their economy, use that to build a healthy and strong economy and society, where trust grows naturally. With more trust, we can then look for convenience. The horse before the cart, so to speak.
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.
Developers have absolutely no real power whatsoever.What makes BTC a much more free money than gold or silver is that anyone can run any client at any time. You want 100 kajillion coins? Go ahead, have them. Good luck getting everyone else to run your stupid client.
The only power that developers have is producing a client. If the economic majority want to increase the supply of coins, they'll run a client which increases the supply of coins. If the economic minority still don't want to increase the supply, they can keep the supply and that's perfectly fine. The same applies with all of the other consensus rules, such as the block size.
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.
Handing gold from one place to another is almost 100% untraceable, just like physical cash. Moving Bitcoin is many times more transparent because every single transaction is accessible on a public ledger. That means that you could see banks shifting money between each other and all other economic activity that takes place. BTC would massively increase transparency unless banks attempted to keep their addresses hidden, but that would be tough since people can see the addresses they deposit to (if they even deposit to a bank at all). Imho bitcoin is not a complete money. At least as it is today.
Right now it more looks like an instrument for investment and speculations. To make it look like money it should be more tradable. Most of the problems are already discussed and I hope will be solved pretty soon.
bitcoin original was not designed to become day to today money ,it was designed as a asset to blockchain technology ,the main focus was blockchain .now it has become the most profitable investment asset,is used widely because of its anonymous nature. Right now it more looks like an instrument for investment and speculations. To make it look like money it should be more tradable. Most of the problems are already discussed and I hope will be solved pretty soon.
Imho bitcoin is not a complete money. At least as it is today.
Right now it more looks like an instrument for investment and speculations. To make it look like money it should be more tradable. Most of the problems are already discussed and I hope will be solved pretty soon.
Right now it more looks like an instrument for investment and speculations. To make it look like money it should be more tradable. Most of the problems are already discussed and I hope will be solved pretty soon.
We can get financial crisis !! Oh come on what are you thinking about bitcoin. To be honest the 21 million cap for bitcoin is not its limitation but it is its security. If the limits are increased then there is no value to bitcoin as it will be available on mass number. Today's bitcoin works on the strategy that it is limited and people are trying to grab as much as they can.
Though one day it is circulated completely, it doesn't mean it won't have deposit securities but it will keep moving through the wallets, peer to peer and this algorithm is non ending.
Paper money & Gold are destructive, they can degrade through the time and can be created again and again to reach market capital again but bitcoin is stable and the algorithm is not destructive, it's computing power that keeping it on always. There is no off switch. That's bitcoin is better.
who said that it is not a good money? all of us benefit in bitcoin the price of it is unstoppable it is now more than 4000$ and you are saying that it is not really a good money, no, it is a good money, and i am sure in the future the price of it will increase more.
Jump to: