[jameslevy]

Would you say the same thing about gold? Genuinely curious, since obviously Bitcoin is frequently compared to gold as a store of value instead of a unit of exchange.

The most persuasive defense of Bitcoin as a store of value is that the world needs precisely one digital store of value, and game theory may dictate that it will end up being Bitcoin.

But yes, Bitcoin is obviously ridiculously volatile. I tell friends that there is money to be made, but you need to have a very strong stomach for it.

[wpietri]

Would I say what? That it's a "speculative, high-volatility commodity with no use value traded in an unregulated market"? No. Gold has use value and is generally traded in regulated markets.

If something is volatile and great for speculation, it's a bad store of value. So I don't think Bitcoin qualifies as that either.

[chii]

> the world needs precisely one digital store of value

that's an assumption, not a fact. The existence of an object doesn't automatically prove that the world needs that object's existence.

May be the world _never_ needs such a method, given existing mechanisms already fullfill such a need (e.g., a bank account/credit card).