Apparently Bloomberg is okay with N. Korea, Cuba, Iran, and ISIS money.
Can you elaborate on this more? I don't follow.
Just responding to the topic heading. There are many currencies worse that bitcoin. In fact on average bitcoin did far better in 2014 than 2013 so the article is trash and not worth reading, which i didn't.
The problem with people like the OP and the author of the article is that they look at too short of time frames when deciding how investments performed historically. If you were to extend the time period to measure performance by at least ~6 months then bitcoin would be, by far the best performing currency.
Pretty sure that when you're looking at an asset that is losing value, there is no such thing as a too-short time period with which to examine performance. If your investment in any asset rises 1000% in a year (as btc did in 2013) and then loses 67% the following year (as btc did in 2014), you may still be up on your initial investment, but it doesn't change the fact that your asset lost 2/3 of it's value in a year, and the opportunity cost of continuing to hold it has bitten you in the ass. The point of the article is to make a conclusion that is very much warranted: btc had a terrible 2014. This doesn't have any implication for the past before that or the future after it. But as a post-script, the weakness is continuing into 2015 so far as money continues to flee btc, shrinking the market cap even as more coins are created, resulting in a falling price. I'm not drawing a conclusion as to how it will turn out, but it definitely seems at the moment the shine is coming off bitcoin and people are realizing it's not going to be the end of fiat they once believed.
