I'm tired of arguing about Mises' Regression Theorem and the definitions of money and currency.
We should just admit that Bitcoin isn't "real money" because it's better than money, just like how a web site is better than a newspaper.
This article is a perfect example of why - mere money can't do any of those things.
Lol ... and an excellent point to boot ... a "bitcoin is not real money" statement should be just agreed with, or reposted with a cryptic answer such as.
A : Bitcoin is not real money!
B: But what is real money?
The key here is that "real money" lacks a precise definition, Alan Greenspan, then Chairman of Fed. Res., someone you would think qualified to know about these things stated this in congressional testimony. So they will always be right, bitcoin is not real money because in fact no such a thing exists since it hasn't been precisely defined.
Call it what you will, but just like land, gold, silver, exotic collectables, diamonds, property, stocks and a myriad of other liquid assets, it appears value can be stored and transferred using these crazy digital keys, becoming commonly known as bitcoins.
I would say bitcoin is nothing like money as we have known it and although bitcoin is NOT money it does not stop it being valuable. Bitcoin is a value information transfer and storage technology. You may or or may not call it money, as you wish, that does not stop it being what it is.
