Category : Uncategorized
I often approach a discussion about Bitcoin by trying to learn where the other party is in their understanding of economic principles. The debate about what constitutes 'good money" goes all the way back to Aristotle (if not earlier) and it is safe to assume that the listener has not fallen as deep into the rabbit hole of economic theory as I have. During my three years of quite significant involvement with Bitcoin I've been exposed to many presentations comparing Bitcoin to fiat money (i.e. cash), credit cards, remittances (i.e. Western Union et. al.) and, of course, gold.
One of the most used ideas defending gold is that it is tangible and that you can hold it in your hand. While a part of me sees the wisdom of thta position I also see a looming pitfall in that it cannot be transferred easily nor inexpensively. This article goes further dealing with that difficulty than I ever have and concludes it (sic. gold) is essentially an abosolete relic from another age when it comes to being used as currency. The writer got plenty of flaming comments from gold lovers and the fact that gold is tangible seems to be a major theme among them. I found the comments as interesting as the article as they show a large variance in the understanding of the commenters when it comes to all the economic, historical and technological issues. The thought occurred to me that we may have to add scienctific knowledge into the mix because the idea of Bitcoin and digital currencies need of using "electrons" came up as a detriment but gold is as dependent on electrons as Bitcoin as is life itself. I left a comment there myself.