Hey Alanmichael! Thanks for reading and commenting! Couple of small points I’d make in response though!
Which is all correct and actually the key point — that it has value based on perception of value. ie you and I will accept in a settlement of a debt even though we know for a fact it has no actual value other than as a piece of paper. All currencies by design fail eventually due to inflation (another reason why Bitcoin is revolutionary in that respect) and have to be replaced, even the oldest one if the world, the British pound, is now worth 99% less than it was when it started 1,200 years ago. I re-read the article and couldn’t find where I’d contradicted that point, perhaps you could highlight it for me? (in case I need to make a small editorial amend!)
Didn’t understand the questionable uses part as it’s already proved it can work as a currency (with the usual current limitations that have not yet been resolved, mostly speed). I, myself, use it on a daily basis to buy basic goods and services, petrol etc, all the stuff you’d normally spend £’s on. It has universal acceptance, but people mix low (but growing) adoption with that point. I’ve always argued it’s a SOV since there are also proved cases where people have prevented losses by storing it, most recently the Venezuelans who bought BTC and fared 1000’s of times better than if they’d left it in fiat. Put it this way, we’d consider silver a SOV, yet it returned a negative value over the last decade. Ouch!
But you are right that crypto has not established itself on any major scale which means much of what we discuss has a limited data set. We know for blockchain data that there’s no question it’s growing by day (approximately 24 new wallets a minute, that’s 1440 an hour or 34,560 are created every day and … that rate is already 23% higher than last year), but even at that rate it’ll be a couple of years before it doubles in size again. Only then will we start to see what we’re dealing with.
Yes, I am enthusiastic and I am often accused of being a ‘preacher of disinformation’ but that goes with the territory! I had EXACTLY the same issue when dealing with the promotion of the internet in the early 1990’s, so I am well used to it by now. ‘Preacher’, I’ll reluctantly accept, but ‘disinformation’ I won’t although I fully acknowledge this does go on in the industry (on the for AND against side) and it bugs the hell out of me!
Me, I’m just a macro-economist who happens to think the world and conditions are right for a much more modern and (finally) universal concept to take hold and work alongside the traditional banking system. Thousands of people have already had the direct benefit of being able to protect their own wealth when their currency fails and this would have been impossible without Bitcoin. The economic argument is just too strong for it not to be viable.
This got a bit long, didn’t it? Hope that helped. Do like a good debate first thing in the morning!
All the best