[pwm]

I know a lot of people dislike bitcoin here but I'm wondering (with the huge assumption that its value stabilises over time) would it not actually be a better solution? Not just from an obvious logistical but also from an environmental perspective? I'd imagine gold mining to be much more destructive (both to nature and to human life).

[Ekaros]

And why give all that wealth away to current holders? Nothing actually make bitcoin inherently valuable on nation-state level.

Gold is fine for now and maybe in future some new agreed upon commodity-current basket currency.

[senectus1]

The crypto market (including btc) is incredibly fragile.

It's also got way too shallow a gene pool (meaning too few hold too much).

Until it gets spread further and wider it can't be relied on for much.

[fendy3002]

I wonder if they can use it? As a noob I see that crypto value is very volatile and don't have intrinsic value, unlike gold that somehow is accepted universally as valuable.

[tremarley]

It has intrinsic value as it requires work to mine it. It is impossible to generate more whenever you want.

You can spend bitcoin in every country, it's valuable everywhere.

[andsoitis]

> It has intrinsic value as it requires work to mine it.

All work isn’t equally valuable. Some work is worth nothing.

> It is impossible to generate more whenever you want.

Value and wealth do not only arise from scarcity.

[tremarley]

It would be a lot easier. Many countries currently keep bitcoin in their reserves such as Russia, USA & China.

Eventually Bitcoin or a similar style coin will be used for global trade

[imtringued]

Honestly hell would freeze over before that happens. It would be more likely that IMF SDRs will be used as an alternative to dollars than Bitcoin.