Don't know why this is getting upvoted as it contains a bunch of factual errors.
It's definitely being used as a currency already, as the article proves.
It's a highly fluctuating currency, but that doesn't remove it's properties as a currency.
It's definitely being used as a currency already, as the article proves.
It's a highly fluctuating currency, but that doesn't remove it's properties as a currency.
People tends to vote on divisive issues in whichever post they agree.
Although not perfect and not entering in details, maybe because of generalization, I found his explanation resonating with what I know about monetary history, but I'm not a monetary economist.