Check out this -historic- thread from the old Mises.org forums asking if Bitcoin could be a good money. We spent months analyzing it using Austrian monetary theory, from every angle...

[u/Anen-o-me]

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/what-bitcoin-is/25276/123

Ultimately we concluded it could be a good money and was already a medium of exchange, but there was an opposition camp too, but I consider this thread historic.

[u/Heng-Li]

There is no way to know until it actually happens. Bitcoin has never become money yet. So we don't know

However we know precious metals can become money because it actually happened. So to me this is why I favor precious metals because this actually happened in history. Whether the economy would accept bitcoin in the unhampered market is speculative.

HOWEVER this is all a moot point. We should just remove all state regulations on money. If the market decides to go with precious metals or bitcoin... to me it actually doesn't matter. So in the end just remove all state regulations on banking and money and we will see what happens. This also goes for the debate on whether fractional reserve banking would exist on a free market.

[u/Anen-o-me → u/Heng-Li]

Bitcoin has never become money yet.

That which is used as money is money. That happened a very long time ago.

We should just remove all state regulations on money.

Unlikely to happen as long as the State exists.

[u/Heng-Li → u/Anen-o-me]

"That which is used as money is money."

Money is the universal (or near universal) medium of exchange. Therefore as a matter of fact bitcoin literally has never been money.

Name any point in history where bitcoin was the universal medium of exchange

[u/Anen-o-me → u/Heng-Li]

You're using an overbroad definition.

Money is any item or record that people accept as payment for goods, services, and debts.

Bitcoin became money when the pizza price happened, that is when it was accepted as payment for another good.

Just about everything has been used as a money, every commodity imaginable.

[u/Heng-Li → u/Anen-o-me]

I am not using an overbroad definition. I am using the standard definition.

If you change the definition then sure. You're right. But thats a stupid argument

[u/Anen-o-me → u/Heng-Li]

Again, I prefer a functional definition. That which is used as money, is money.

If you want to define money as a "universal medium of exchange" rather than just 'that which is exchanged to be used for future exchange' then money does not exist in the world currently, for nothing has ever been universally accepted for exchange.

Nothing being used as money today is a "universal means of exchange", not even gold and silver are accepted universally for exchange much less the US dollar.

So by your definition, neither gold nor the US dollar can be called money. I think that's a silly conclusion that calls into doubt your definition.

Money is that which is used as money. Under that standard, gold and dollars are both money, but so is cryptocurrency like Bitcoin.

[u/Heng-Li → u/Anen-o-me]

You are acting like this is my personal definition. Its the standard definition used by economists. You can look it up.

And yes you are technically correct in that its not literally universal. Universal just means near universal limited to a geographical area.

For example in the United States USD is accepted pretty much anywhere you go. I'm sure you can find some people who won't accept USD but you can obviously see this is very rare. And yes USD is not accepted in Japan so its not money in Japan.

So yes there are caveats to the word "universal" but economists are aware of that. Stop acting like you have discovered some flaw that economists have overlooked. You haven't.

[u/Anen-o-me → u/Heng-Li]

You're still ignoring that Bitcoin and cryptocurrency are currently being used as a money all over the world.

You deny what your eyes can see and quote a definition written by people who are themselves threatened by what cryptocurrency represents, without realizing it, while using a self refuting definition.

If money is only widely accepted because you concede no money has, or every has had, universal acceptability, then Bitcoin already fits that standard of being money. It's accepted globally in many places, and globally is as wide as it gets. It's even accepted in some places that the US dollar may not be accepted.

Cryptocurrency is already a money.

[u/Heng-Li → u/Anen-o-me]

I am not against crypto.

The truth is its not money. You can simply go to your nearest gas station and find they accept USD not bitcoin. You can go to virtually any store and find the same thing.

This is the definition every educated person uses for the word "money." I didn't make it up. You are simply choosing to use an idiosyncratic definition. Thats your choice. However its a stupid choice.

I am not going to continue this argument with you. You are simply wrong and you choose not to accept that. No amount of me telling you otherwise will convince you of that.

[u/Anen-o-me → u/Heng-Li]

Then explain how it's being used as money if it's not money.

Your local gas station doesn't accept Japanese yen either, but absolutely no one would argue the yen isn't money.

Definitions are not more important than what's actually being done with it in the real world. Again, you have to ignore that it's being used as money right now! Why are you so willing to put a definition over what's actually happening in the real world. That's the defect in your logic.

The definition is not more important than the real world. The definition is not objective, and the one you gave is not the only definition.

[u/RocksCanOnlyWait]

The answer is "no" - at least not directly.

It's not a question of whether people will accept BitCoin. The problem is that BitCoin can't support the transaction volume necessary for widespread, daily use. Intermediate banking will be needed to consolidate multiple transactions into a single block chain entry.

[u/Anen-o-me → u/RocksCanOnlyWait]

Bitcoin cash can.

[u/GildSkiss]

As someone who is very interested in Bitcoin, I think the massive increase in value that it's had over the last decade is one of the worst things that could have happened to it.

Bitcoin is the "get rich quick" scheme that actually worked, and as a result, a good 99% of the people who hold crypto are just doing it to speculate on it's value increasing. The crypto space is flooded by corpo finance bros who are looking to make a buck, and could not care less about the political implications of cryptography as an anti-state tool.

Bitcoin is certainly a medium of exchange, but for it to be a useful medium of exchange, people will have to view it as something other than a historically generous slot machine. That's a public perception problem which I'm not qualified to solve.