[jariel]

So build a non-distributed trust-based system based over top BTC instead of something else? Gold would be a much better thing to do that with?

" without going through the traditional gatekeepers of our current financial system. "

You can make create a bank anytime you want and rules are in place for regulatory reasons. If BTC ever becomes important, the same rules will apply.

So:

1) Currency -> Too expensive. 2) 2cnd layer -> Gold is better. 3) Store of value -> almost every classical store of value is better.

These are are all 'how we can make BTC possibly useful' instead of 'why BTC is useful'.

It doesn't tick any of the boxes.

There will be public ways to short BTC soon I wonder what kind of effect that will have.

[kenneth]

We used to have that system on top of gold but we killed it a bit over 40 years ago. It was called the gold standard and most of the world ran on it.

We need a version of it where the powers can't just say screw it, let's can it and make a bunch of new money out of thin air and you're all forced to accept it and use it.

[jariel]

Yes, of course.

The notion of making a currency based on a precious metal has one advantage only: fixed supply. And this is not much of an advantage.

As far as currencies go, if you want such a currency, then based one off of Gold, not BTC.

If you want a store of value, that's easy - just buy gold if that's what you want.

If you don't trust the Central Bank wherever you are, the don't hold that currency. Buy other currencies, real estate, commodities etc.

There's no point in BTC.

[Kathula]

Have fun staying poor if you gonna short Bitcoin.

[UncleMeat]

All of these discussions always devolve to “to the moon”. That’s not exactly a compelling response to technical concerns.

[177tcca]

See my other comment which can be summarized for this response as: technical/fundamental superiority has never been, and is currently not, a silver bullet to proliferation of a technology, or the success of a company. That is at an all time low, I believe.