Is Bitcoin good for the economy?

[GmAdvice]

Bitcoins have three useful qualities in a currency, according to The Economist in January 2015: they are "hard to earn, limited in supply and easy to verify". Economists define money as a store of value, a medium of exchange and a unit of account, and agree that bitcoin has some way to go to meet all these criteria.

[TheUltraElite]

Do you have the correct source for this quote? I would like see it.

Hard to earn - this is incorrect. It is very easy to earn provided you have money to buy it - that is speaking in terms of owning it. If you talk in terms of employment salary in bitcoin then its somewhat of a niche here and other freelancing sites with bitcoin as payment mode.

I think a bitcoin based economy will never happen completely. It will always be a mixture of fiat and bitcoin because both have their specific and fundamental properties which serve different needs. Of course some people will never accept crypto and so they will make sure that it never reaches or have difficulty in reaching mainstream.

[Assface16678]

Bitcoins have three useful qualities in a currency, according to The Economist in January 2015: they are "hard to earn, limited in supply and easy to verify". Economists define money as a store of value, a medium of exchange and a unit of account, and agree that bitcoin has some way to go to meet all these criteria.

One of the best transaction today is with the use of cryptocurrency because many people want to use the crypto or the bitcoin because it is faster to have a transaction and today there are a lot of people want to make bitcoin as the primary or secondary payment to the bills, services and other things with the support of crypto. As a person does not want to lose their money with the use of cryptocurrency we want to adopt the use of it but still, there are some country does not accept with the use of bitcoin or crypto as a payment still the adaptation of the bitcoin to the economy are still not supported to improve the economy.

[Darker45]

Bitcoins have three useful qualities in a currency, according to The Economist in January 2015: they are "hard to earn, limited in supply and easy to verify". Economists define money as a store of value, a medium of exchange and a unit of account, and agree that bitcoin has some way to go to meet all these criteria.

I cannot understand the reason behind the article of The Economist claiming that Bitcoin is a good currency because of its being hard to earn. A currency that is good should be easy to earn. Otherwise, the majority of the people would have a really hard time getting that which is very basic for them to be able to buy their needs daily. I would say Bitcoin is now hard to earn because its value is ever increasing in terms of USD. However, that increase in value will also mean its purchasing power is also increasing, provided the price of goods and services are not inflating at an equal pace.

The rest I agree. Instead of easy to verify, however, it should be verifiable at an instant.

[julius caesar]

One of the best transaction today is with the use of cryptocurrency because many people want to use the crypto or the bitcoin because it is faster to have a transaction and today there are a lot of people want to make bitcoin as the primary or secondary payment to the bills, services and other things with the support of crypto.

Bitcoin or cryptocurrency will have a huge impact to the economy because of the faster transaction that it offers. The faster the transaction we have the higher chance that the economy will also move faster so this one would definitely work. You can transact whenever you want as long as you have an internet connection that will make every transaction easier.

[joeperry]

Bitcoins have three useful qualities in a currency, according to The Economist in January 2015: they are "hard to earn, limited in supply and easy to verify". Economists define money as a store of value, a medium of exchange and a unit of account, and agree that bitcoin has some way to go to meet all these criteria.

Yes limited in supply but they can always fork in order to create a new coin which i think can be consider as an extension of that cryptocurrency also a cryptocurrency is a decentralized cryptocurrency and if there's a big crypto holder he/she can managed to manipulate the market whenever he/she likes. I would say that the blockchain technology is the best thing that i can think that can be good for the economy, if you're going to observe the cryptocurrency industry all of the project are based in blockchain technology and it's not limited you can use it to finance, security, etc.

[Gozie51]

Bitcoin is not hard to earn and so the analysis on it with economist does not follow up. I will rather support the idea that it is off shoot of blockchain technology and also used as digital currency.

[CHENIEN]

definitely yes,cryptocurrency is a secure easy and cost effective way to perform payment which is providing by a modern technologies,the process is suitable for trading and  investing digitally because of their potential investment programs,i guess the economy were grow by gathering information from a multiple networks which is considered as a legit and authentic profit way to earn secondary income

[Wexnident]

It's actually rather easy to earn BTC. As long as you have the funds, equipment and time that is. Also, I doubt it could act as a store of value. Sure, it could be a medium, but as a store of value? Nope. It's way too volatile. And even if you consider that the supply is limited, BTC transactions could approach the number 0 and never reach it. Just like how it was said in here:

I think this supply isn't enough for world-wide using and mass adoption

Fortunately, Bitcoin doesn't care what you think. Bitcoin is a voluntary system, if you don't like it, don't use bitcoin.  Bitcoin is a voluntary system.

Bitcoin is just a number.  If 21 million Bitcoins isn't enough, then how about 21 billion millibitcoin?

If 21 billion millibitcoin isn't enough, then how about 21 trillion microbitcoin?

If 21 trillion microbitcoin isn't enough, then how about 21 quadrillion nanobitcoin?

If 21 quadrillion nanobitcoin isn't enough, then how about 21 quintillion picobitcoin?

See, that's the surprising thing about numbers, they can always be divided resulting in smaller numbers.

So even if the supply IS limited, I doubt it would stand at a single price for the long term, since the supply changes every now and then because of lost wallets/ hacked accounts/forgotten accounts and other stuff like that. There needs to be a solid store of value right now like USD, and stand together with BTC to form an economy, is what I think is needed.

[tomahawk9]

Do you have the correct source for this quote? I would like see it.

Just Google "the magic of mining" and an article from The Economist will pop up.

They were talking about mining, and from the previous sentences, i believe they were referring to how hard it is to get the block reward (25BTC in 2015) since it's pretty much a "race" between those with a lot of resources (mining equipment).

[avikz]

They were talking about mining, and from the previous sentences, i believe they were referring to how hard it is to get the block reward (25BTC in 2015) since it's pretty much a "race" between those with a lot of resources (mining equipment).

I think the same! Earning here means mining! And we all know that mining is not at all easy these days! The kind of equipment and investment it requires, can only be arranged by the deep pocket individuals. So in this sense, earning bitcoin is hard, really really hard!

During initial days of bitcoin, it was easy to mine by individuals! But not anymore! So the benefit of bitcoin can only be reaped by some selected individuals right at the moment. Late entrants are still struggling to get their share of pie!

[GmAdvice]

Bitcoins have three useful qualities in a currency, according to The Economist in January 2015: they are "hard to earn, limited in supply and easy to verify". Economists define money as a store of value, a medium of exchange and a unit of account, and agree that bitcoin has some way to go to meet all these criteria.

I cannot understand the reason behind the article of The Economist claiming that Bitcoin is a good currency because of its being hard to earn. A currency that is good should be easy to earn. Otherwise, the majority of the people would have a really hard time getting that which is very basic for them to be able to buy their needs daily. I would say Bitcoin is now hard to earn because its value is ever increasing in terms of USD. However, that increase in value will also mean its purchasing power is also increasing, provided the price of goods and services are not inflating at an equal pace.

The rest I agree. Instead of easy to verify, however, it should be verifiable at an instant.

Yes @Darker45 i read this post on wikipedia, but i didn't satisfied with this "hard to earn", I think they are referring hard to earned, block rewards by mining,

[GmAdvice]

Do you have the correct source for this quote? I would like see it.

Just Google "the magic of mining" and an article from The Economist will pop up.

They were talking about mining, and from the previous sentences, i believe they were referring to how hard it is to get the block reward (25BTC in 2015) since it's pretty much a "race" between those with a lot of resources (mining equipment).

Yes @tomahawk9 exactly, in this article they are referring "hard to earn bitcoin" is by mining and their block rewards, we all know that mining requires a lot of equipments which requires a good amount of investment.

[Naida_BR]

Of course, Bitcoin is good for the economy.
It gives the opportunity to people who do not have high salaries to work from their home and get paid in higher rates, eliminating inequalities between countries and regions of people who leave on different places.

[bitgolden]

When you are disturbing the rich and elevating the poor there will always be some troubles. Just to give an example when the world workers went on a strike for 8 hour days for example (which doesn't apply everywhere even today) we have seen what could potentially happen, companies didn't profited and they started to adjust in a way before the strike that if workers didn't worked 10 hours a day they would lose money and close shop, hell a lot of them actually bankrupted and went away as well.

However what happened? In many of the free world people are working 8 hours nowadays (or 9 at most, otherwise if you work more, your company does something illegal) and in the end they adjusted and now they are all fine with the 8 hours thing. Bitcoin is like that, it will level the playing field for the rich and the poor, rich will do everything they can but eventually we will prevail.

[imstillthebest]

who is that economist and why only on the year 2015 ?  what about older than that year and newer than that  year  ?   .btc is not hard to earn but its easily obtainable  . limited supply yes 100 percent correct but easy to verify  ? no i dont think so  .  but i agree on the other three uses of bitcoin mentioned above  . bitcoin is  useful so yes it is good for the economy  but depends also on the country because some are against with this bitcoin  . why they cant wake up and accept the truth that bitcoin is good  .

[samcrypto]

Bitcoins have three useful qualities in a currency, according to The Economist in January 2015: they are "hard to earn, limited in supply and easy to verify". Economists define money as a store of value, a medium of exchange and a unit of account, and agree that bitcoin has some way to go to meet all these criteria.

Its not hard to earn if you already have the knowledge about bitcoin, imagine buying this one in just a minute and use it for your future financial transactions. Bitcoin is good for the economy if you’re an investor but if you are on the side of the government then you’ll not allow bitcoin to enter in a major market. The limited supply of bitcoin makes it more unique and expensive crypto as of now.

[Harlot]

Lets just go down to the basics of how economy works for a country. If Bitcoin as some kind of payment for their citizens to earn in exchange for their service, jobs, or business then it will definitely help an economy of a country. The influx of money entering the country alone means that their country is having a portion of the limited supply of Bitcoin the government also doesn't need to print out more of their fiat currency as Bitcoin can also be used as money. As long as that country's citizens are earning from Bitcoin directly or indirectly it safe to say that Bitcoin is helping a country's economy grow.

[Kemarit]

Bitcoins have three useful qualities in a currency, according to The Economist in January 2015: they are "hard to earn, limited in supply and easy to verify". Economists define money as a store of value, a medium of exchange and a unit of account, and agree that bitcoin has some way to go to meet all these criteria.

Still boils down as to how people are going to used their bitcoin, do they want it to become a store of value? Or when merchants started to accepting Bitcoin as payment scheme, will people going to used it?

So this kind of arguments/counter arguments are moot in my opinion, as Bitcoin or crypto are really challenging the way old economic systems are being viewed upon, IMHO.

[Subbir]

Making Bitcoin Made Easy I do not think they're "hard to earn  Bitcoin will have an impression on the economy of the country through digital currency and blockchain it'll depend entirely thereon on the country and therefore the government. There are many countries where crypto doesn't support  therein case  if the govt of that country supports it then the terminated Bitcoin economy is sweet.