As for the value in bitcoin, it lacks state backing and so-called inherent value. I say so-called because it is a technical term which technically applies in this way. It's theoretically an exceptional currency (if you can wait 10-40 minutes), but a poor store of value, in almost exactly the way that is a poor store of energy. You'll never get all of it out, but that's okay in physics and, I suspect, in economics too.
Bitcoin is strange to economics. It certainly defies traditional analysis. I don't know if it's viable. But should it fail there's more to it than simply being deflationary and lacking inherent value. If nothing else, it's far more interesting than that and we ought to study it regardless of how we feel about it. We have an opportunity with all of this publicly-available data, a rare one should the venture fail.
Are the buyers smart? Many are doing it profitably, and not just by speculation, but by avoiding local economic disasters or by purchasing ~cough~ goods not otherwise available to them. I think the vast majority of the losers are speculators, and that's fine by me. They surely help inflate the value, but I don't believe they're responsible for its viability.
Whoops, sorry for the essay.Chill out, snowflake.
It also doesn't have any levers that can be pulled to control the supply (e.g. interest rates, quantitative easing). It's interesting though.You can't inspire people with facts- Small Gods
Note that the whole point of government control is likely control by Morgan and Sachs.
I do enjoy seeing people criticise a guy that represents an industry that routinely invests in Peruvian farming supplies (and I do mean that literally). Barclays in particular were notorious for their South American investment portfolios.
And yet - apparently this dude is too goody two shoes for Bitcoin? Well bless their cotton socks.
The tech is outdated, the implementation banal, and the end result? God dammit, this is not the future we were promised!