and let's revisit this discussion 5 years from now.
right now there is so much fluctutation within BC it might as well be tulips. maybe it will become a stable currency, maybe it won't.
right now there is so much fluctutation within BC it might as well be tulips. maybe it will become a stable currency, maybe it won't.
The only explanation I've come up with that sounds plausible is that a new currency, even just Bitcoin with a different genesis block, should be as valuable as Bitcoins, but fails the test of scarcity -- it's too easy to counterfeit them by double-spend attacks because of the smaller power of the network.
I don't trust this idea, though -- it smacks of post-hoc reasoning. I guess by extension the value of a proof-of-work-backed currency in aggregate should be bounded by the expected cost of a 51% attack given rational actors; doing this math for the Bitcoin network would either give strong evidence that the current pricing is irrational or weak evidence that it is rational.
Most often, when gold and silver were used as currencies, it was because some dude punched his profile on one side of the coin, and because doing that as a private citizen was difficult and/or punishable by gruesome torture, the value of the money was related to how powerful the head on the coin was because that related to the probability that the coin wouldn't turn green.
This doesn't really answer the question you posed. Now I'm totally in the realm of post-hoc reasoning, though, and I can't really think of a concrete way of falsifying this argument, but I'll go for it anyway. Gold and silver occur naturally near the surface in relatively pure forms; gold especially since it doesn't really allow with anything. As a result, these metals were present in antiquity, and as systems of money grew up, they were good candidates because people thought they understood the scarcity -- an understanding that turned out to be proven incorrect several times in the history of coinage, with reasonably disastrous impacts on savers in those metals. Of course, "being used in antiquity" was not one of the properties I defined above. Arguably fungibility is a factor if the metals were not easily identifiable or distinguishable from other metals.
Which is exactly why its so difficult to replicate "easy functionality" such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram et al.
I don't know it's worth $0.10, $100, or $1000000...
In short, that's begging the question. It's like saying "tulips are great because it lets me give people tulips".
One of the revolutionary things about tulips at that time was that the unique patterns caused by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip-breaking_virus were only partially inherited: after a few generations, the bulbs are too weakened to survive, and the particular pattern disappears permanently, no matter how lovely and beautiful it was.
If you read up on a book about Tulipomania, you'll notice there are no contemporary photos of tulips like Semper Augustus. Because Semper Augustus no longer exists.
So you can 'plant new tulips at will' the same way you can 'paint new Rembrandts at will' ie. slap some paint on a canvas and hope it looks vaguely similar and that's the best you can do, since you can never ever get another real Rembrandt or real Semper Augustus.
Perfectly Fungible
Perfect Liquidity
Perfect Stability
Right now bitcoins are commodities. Any bitcoin is equally valuable as any other bitcoin; bitcoin's value derives from its purchasing power and from its exchange rate to other mediums of exchange. It has great liquidity and fungibility. However it has inherent stability problems as well as ambient ones:
Currently it experiences volatility by virtue of transactions not being demoninated in BTC, and of its exchange rate to other mediums of exchange. A large part of this is because it is consistently attracting large pools of people who wish to acquire it. The recent price spike appears to be a consequence of Chinese interest in acquiring bitcoin rapidly increasing. Eventually the number of people who want to possess bitcoins will grow as a function of the population on the planet, rather than as a function of new groups of people deciding it has become appealing. This will introduce some stability.
However, there's a fundamental flaw in that the pool of bitcoins is fixed, and that possessors know the finite size of the pool of bitcoins a priori. This exerts deflationary pressure on BTC, and as others have noted, discourages its spending. BTC is vastly more liquid than gold is, for example, but the stability of its value will always be an impediment to its usefulness as a currency.
This doesn't spell the doom of Bitcoin; it doesn't need to be a perfect currency, just a better currency than other currencies. It is already the most liquid commodity on the planet. It is at least as fungible as USD; attempts by coinvalidation to ruin this notwithstanding. Should the deflationary pressure of bitcoin compared to its circulation become sufficiently small, it will have inherent qualities to make it the best currency available, which can lead to it becoming more widespread.
A currency with lower transaction costs in time, and which has growth characteristics which trend toward following the value of productive output of the human race will certainly be better. USD are inherently worse.