Bitcoin Is Not Really A Good Money

[BobK71]

All this reasons that you called are ok, because of, you see, Bitcoin wasn't created to replace gold or silver. So, they both can be used by the central bank and people. Bitcoin was created as control free currency and it is following it's target good for now. I don't see why do you compare bitcoin and gold in such positions where gold actually wins. Bitcoin has it's own positive sides, that gold hasn't, with which it attracts so many users and attention today.

This is a reasonable argument to make, but I don't think it's as simple as 'gold has one set of advantages, and Bitcoin has another set of advantages.'

The advantages of Bitcoin bring convenience in an electronic age. The advantages of gold are in regards to the integrity of a state-free money.  One set is more fundamentally important than the other.

It's almost like saying, a beautiful boat with many amenities is really no good if it has holes that will eventually sink it.

[skyline247]

Bitcoin is not great right now because there are huge transaction fees and of course no one wants to pay 10% for one transaction, especially small amounts. With that said, it will get better with Lightning Network.

[arseaboy]

All this reasons that you called are ok, because of, you see, Bitcoin wasn't created to replace gold or silver. So, they both can be used by the central bank and people. Bitcoin was created as control free currency and it is following it's target good for now. I don't see why do you compare bitcoin and gold in such positions where gold actually wins. Bitcoin has it's own positive sides, that gold hasn't, with which it attracts so many users and attention today.

This is a reasonable argument to make, but I don't think it's as simple as 'gold has one set of advantages, and Bitcoin has another set of advantages.'

The advantages of Bitcoin bring convenience in an electronic age. The advantages of gold are in regards to the integrity of a state-free money.  One set is more fundamentally important than the other.

It's almost like saying, a beautiful boat with many amenities is really no good if it has holes that will eventually sink it.

great that's how exactly we should think about this system as gold already proven his existence that most of the countries treated as an asset while bitcoin still new and still trying to prove its stability both have its own potential and they have different venue.

[Roboabhishek]

Every technology has its positive and negative effects it depends on the user.
For eg, Drug dealing and accepting payment for drugs and illegal businesses is now much easier. ( negative )

People can send money in form of bitcoins easily to one another without going through banks ( +ve )

[lanyounanhai]

stop blaming bitcoin. Bitcoin is a good money and if you do not like bitcoin, you can use fiat or other kinds of cryptocurrency

[laxinternational]

All this reasons that you called are ok, because of, you see, Bitcoin wasn't created to replace gold or silver. So, they both can be used by the central bank and people. Bitcoin was created as control free currency and it is following it's target good for now. I don't see why do you compare bitcoin and gold in such positions where gold actually wins. Bitcoin has it's own positive sides, that gold hasn't, with which it attracts so many users and attention today.

This is a reasonable argument to make, but I don't think it's as simple as 'gold has one set of advantages, and Bitcoin has another set of advantages.'

The advantages of Bitcoin bring convenience in an electronic age. The advantages of gold are in regards to the integrity of a state-free money.  One set is more fundamentally important than the other.

It's almost like saying, a beautiful boat with many amenities is really no good if it has holes that will eventually sink it.

great that's how exactly we should think about this system as gold already proven his existence that most of the countries treated as an asset while bitcoin still new and still trying to prove its stability both have its own potential and they have different venue.

Yes the worst part is that some people figure out that bitcoin was designed to replace gold, silver, platinum or dollars. This is not true, bitcoin was created to provide unique experience for peer to peer payments. We all need to know this before start blaming bitcoin or complain about it.

[Bagaji]

Well I don't understand what you mean by bitcoin not really a good money, because to me bitcoin has all the features of money and equally  store of value compared to other currency you can think about. Only people who don't have knowledge of what crypto currency is all about.

[fullypak]

Every technology has its positive and negative effects it depends on the user.
For eg, Drug dealing and accepting payment for drugs and illegal businesses is now much easier. ( negative )

People can send money in form of bitcoins easily to one another without going through banks ( +ve )

Yes we can do this dealing with direct cash also, but why the dealers use Bitcoins means it is un trackable currency. no body can know who is sent and who is received. i think people will use bitcoins for both positive and negative. We can not say directly that Bitcoin is not good money. it depends on you how you treat.

[Hydrogen]

One might say world markets decide which money is good or bad. Good money prospers and increases in value while bad money devalues/hyperinflates as its worth diminishes.

If Charles Darwin were alive today he could write a theory of money evolution where markets are defined by a survival of the fittest credo which determines good, strong, money survives while bad, weak, money perishes and is eliminated from the global financial gene pool.

As Charles Darwin isn't here, how do we define what good money or bad money is?

[Hamphser]

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).

Lmao…truly for those old fashion men. Fools keeps on talking trash about Bitcoin; saying things that don’t even have meaning, while experts are a whole lot busy making money through Bitcoin. I’ve seen some people said all sorts bad words against Bitcoin, but are now investing into it. Let them keep on wasting time, while others quietly makes money.

This is true, they are wasting time while we are silently making money with bitcoin. Ive known some of my friends did tell me that bitcoin is a scam or fraud but a year later they do approach me again and asking what are the ways on making money on bitcoin because they do able to see me that i have lots of money to buy my wants which they cant afford to buy on.Bitcoin might not have a physical form but still consider as money since it do have a value.

[Reid]

Loved reading it. But have we ever think why gold is so precious?
It is just a mere stone and just made valuable because it is shining. 
Time for a new one to shine and change this world on how it circulates from just the fiat money and commodities which are being used by crocodiles just for their own profit.
This one is not just for the rich. It will somehow change the way people look at a new currency.

[sindikat]

Now bitcoin is not very good money it is true. But who is to blame? Bitcoin can be compared to weapons. You can use it to protect your life and can destroy and take away life from others. Bitcoin still not a currency. We are still on the way to this and much depends on our actions.

[keeee]

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.

First of all we are now in the "Digital society" where everyone are more likely using technologies such as phones, desktop etc. Golds and Silvers are not so good in our time. Bitcoin is now the number one in terms of cryptocurrencies because of its interesting features.

[hardforkcoin]

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.

Iwanted to just say that in all reality, the elites aren't affected by bitcoin right now at all.

The bond/stock market is somewhere around tens of trillions of dolalrs  or hundreds of trillions of dollars of value.

The total marketcap of  all coins is about 154 Billion USD. That is very small compared to stock/bond market. The elites make their money in stocks/bonds.

A new thing coming out with ICOs all the time can greatly affect their earnings though, as investors will now likely start to notice ICOs and not put that money into stocks/bonds any more.

We are decades away from it making a real impact I would say.

[ShadowBits]

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.

yup yup yup
Can you believe that there are still people who dont believe in Bitcoin?
Look, be ignorant but don't stay ignorant.You can be excused for initial skepticism and ignorance but stupidity is a choice
The worst kind of fool is an educated fool. Real talk. 😐
 if 2017 saw cryptocurrency emerge as a revolutionary force to be reckoned with, 2018 is going to put insane money in your pocket in a very real way!
Bitcoin equals Good money.

[el kaka22]

Now bitcoin is not very good money it is true. But who is to blame? Bitcoin can be compared to weapons. You can use it to protect your life and can destroy and take away life from others. Bitcoin still not a currency. We are still on the way to this and much depends on our actions.

Lol, have you gone crazy ? Bitcoins are not taking away anyone’s life rather this currency has given hope to live to masses. Go and meet those who were unable to sleep well just because of their financial problems and how bitcoins have helped them out in fixing their problems. Bitcoins can’t be compared with weapons, don’t be so rude, pal.

[bestluck]

Bitcoin is not great right now because there are huge transaction fees and of course no one wants to pay 10% for one transaction, especially small amounts. With that said, it will get better with Lightning Network.

yes you are right these transaction fees really made pissed off some of the biotcoin users, because at the start they earn very low amount of bitcoin from here and when there is transaction fees, user get so little amount, so this is why they backed off when they see such high amount of transaction fees. But I suggest most people that keep working because this transaction fee become less in future.

[Clement Kaliyar]

stop blaming bitcoin. Bitcoin is a good money and if you do not like bitcoin, you can use fiat or other kinds of cryptocurrency

If i really want to send money now at this moment i will use fiat,because the transaction charges are crazy right now and the confirmation delays are really high,i am glad to send transactions through fiat rather than shelling out more money as transaction charges,i really want to see things change and the core has to take some steps to tackle this issue and if that is handled it is the best currency we ever had.

[nowlscor18]

Maybe for you Bitcoin is not a good money, but for most bitcoin community here it is a good currency where many of here helped by bitcoin.
They used bitcoin in so many ways, whether in savings, investment, trading, and many more.

That's  true, i doubted about this at first,  but seing how this really works makes me say that's it is really useful. It helped a lot of people already and still continuing to provide for us. Not only providing our for our needs but also giving us the chance to  incourage others who can also use the benefits of this.

[kuryadi]

Bitcoin is a fluctuating currency and a significant price change .. making bitcoin prices rise and fall briefly. this is the excess bitcoin, and most people are investing bitcoin. They take the opportunity to buy when bitcoin prices go down and sell when bitcoin prices go up .. there are some people just keep their bitcoin waiting for expensive bitcoin prices. I think bitcoin is better than fiat money. Other than as an investment also bitcoin you can use to make transactions easily without a third party. You can make a peer-to-peer transaction to allow faster delivery.