I think the same instance he created Bitcoins he wished that there will be a currency that people could rely on besides providing freedom and really serving the true purpose of a currency , maybe he just wanted to make it an option and never knew it would grow this big.
No one wants to share their bank balance with anyone, it's something that makes us uncomfortable actually, getting everything tracked and at the same time paying huge amount of taxes to the middle man the normal fiat is far from being perfect , it's non volatile and universal that's are the only 2 good reasons , what I think is He hoped for the best but didn't knew it could go this big.
Topic: DID SATOSHI EVER THOUGHT TO MAKE BITCOIN A MAINSTREAM CURRENCY? - page 3. (Read 581 times)
I am having this question in my mind for sometime that did Satoshi ever thought to make bitcoin a mainstream currency? Or did he just wanted to create merely an anonymous commodity which could be used for transactions as a side line currency to fiat. I came across this idea actually when I was scrolling around the past posts of satoshi in the Economics Section. Here are a few instances when he quoted bitcoin as a Commodity and not as a currency.
Here are the quotes of some of his messages. I think he was aware of the deflationary nature problem of scarcity with bitcoin due to which he was of an opinion that it is difficult to use Bitcoin as a mainstream currency with a government.
Bitcoin would be convenient for people who don't have a credit card or don't want to use the cards they have, either don't want the spouse to see it on the bill or don't trust giving their number to "porn guys", or afraid of recurring billing.
Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock.
More like a collectible or commodity.
More like a collectible or commodity.
As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties:
- boring grey in colour
- not a good conductor of electricity
- not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either
- not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose
and one special, magical property:
- can be transported over a communications channel
If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.
Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you've suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it.
I think the traditional qualifications for money were written with the assumption that there are so many competing objects in the world that are scarce, an object with the automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value will surely win out over those without intrinsic value. But if there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value that could be used as money, only scarce but no intrinsic value, I think people would still take up something.
(I'm using the word scarce here to only mean limited potential supply)
- boring grey in colour
- not a good conductor of electricity
- not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either
- not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose
and one special, magical property:
- can be transported over a communications channel
If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.
Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you've suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it.
I think the traditional qualifications for money were written with the assumption that there are so many competing objects in the world that are scarce, an object with the automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value will surely win out over those without intrinsic value. But if there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value that could be used as money, only scarce but no intrinsic value, I think people would still take up something.
(I'm using the word scarce here to only mean limited potential supply)
Here are the quotes of some of his messages. I think he was aware of the deflationary nature problem of scarcity with bitcoin due to which he was of an opinion that it is difficult to use Bitcoin as a mainstream currency with a government.
Jump to: