Since you bring it up, let's speak about the Real and the Ministry of Finance /Banco Central do Brasil's "mechanisms to stabilize the value."
/snip
Which brings us to the Real. When introduced in 1994, the BCB said it would defend near parity with the USD (remember?). It is at about $0.3 USD/BRL now. It is about 18% down vs. the dollar since the beginning of the month. Inflation has jumped to 7.7%. And very unfortunately, it does not look like any of that is about to get any better any time soon, regardless of the mechanisms deployed.
(You surely sound like a Brazilian, and an anti-Dilma one specifically. At very least, you must be from some Latin American country?)
A 70% loss of value in 20 years, and a predicted 8% inflation rate per year are nothing to boast about, sure. But they are still better than a 8% loss in 24 hours, or 78% loss in 14 months, both
totally unpredicted and unpredictable.
Several bitcoin companies have learned the hard way that bitcoin cannot be used as unit of accounting or as liquid capital storage, not so much because of its (past and possible) loss of value, but because of its unpredictability. (IIRC, SatoshiLabs, the makers of Trezor, were one such example.)
For contracts that span 2-3 months, an inflation rate of 1%/year can be ignored. An inflation of 10%/year cannot be ignored; but, if it is roughly predictable, it can be accounted for in the contract; either by adjusting the amounts to be paid, or pegging them to some mutually trusted inflation index. On the other hand, a sudden and unpredicted inflation of 10% over one week can turn a good profit into a significant loss, even if some payments are pegged to some index.
By the way, the BRL:USD exchange rate was 2.74 in 2005, 2.71 last December, and below 2.70 at all times between those dates. Not that bad, eh?
Finally, and, most importantly,
I am not advising anyone to invest in BRL, or dollars, or euros. No one with a bit of brain invests in a currency (except for very short term speculation, and even then it is a very risky gamble).
Since you seem to be in a reasonable mood today, let me reply. I'll try to be brief.
Characteristically, your reply changes the subject. You said that one of the top 6 problems with bitcoin is that it "lacks mechanisms to stabilize the value". I pointed out that the matter is frequently no better with sovereign currencies, which do have these mechanisms. I used the recent history of your country's currency as an example, because I suppose your pocket to have been hurt dearly as a result at least once. But really, the Brazilian economy's performance and Brazilian politics are besides the point.
The crucial claim is that central bank control of the money supply tends, over the long term, to be distortive, inefficient, and unfairly advantageous to the financial sector (have you read John Nash's arguments to this effect?). Bitcoin is revolutionary, among other things, in its subversion of that dogma, and in its bold and direct implementation of an alternative. Thus to say that bitcoin lacks mechanisms to stabilize the value completely misses the boat: the system eschews those mechanisms by design.
We seem, then, to have two options: you are not equipped to get the previous point, or you disingenuously ignore it. We must assume it is the latter. So you are an obfuscator, which disqualifies you from being some kind of trusted technical advisor to the public.
Finally, nobody denies that wide fluctuations is bitcoin's exchange rate impedes its proper functioning as a currency, for now. But what do you expect? The project is 6 years old, it is not as if something can go from not existing to mature stability overnight. And obviously we all realize the project may fail -- it is unnecessary to repeatedly point out something so painfully obvious -- but in that case it is near certain that something along its lines but even more robust will replace it. Either way we are witnessing an evolution of that most interesting of concepts (and assets), money itself. You must be as fascinated by this as the rest of us, otherwise you would not put in the kind of time you have put in in researching it. And yet you keep holding on to your predetermined conclusion (skepticism over the project's long term success), and looking for arguments to support that conclusion. This is, strictly speaking, irrational.
And I guess that is what gets me: your determined, persistent irrationality. It is rather uncomfortable to witness. Unless, of course, you are just an impersonator and a troll. In which case you deserve to be trolled.