[wyager]

>This means, that Bitcoin is something you wouldn't want to store value in for the long-term.

I can think of a reason you would want to. Bitcoin is strictly supply-limited, and all fiat currencies are not. One might decide that, despite Bitcoin's volatility, the expected change in unit value over time is higher than that of any (inflationary) fiat currency.

[bigiain]

With the difference that other fiat currencies are spectacularly unlikely to be declared illegal in your jurisdiction. There's a non-zero chance of your "bitcoin stored value" being about as desirable as a few suitcases full of cocaine, if your local laws fall that way.

I wonder if tip4commit have even considered whether any of the unsolicited donations they're collecting for are intended for residents in any of the non-green countries here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Bitcoin_by_country ? If you're a contributor to an open source project and you live in Bangladesh, this is about as welcome as receiving illegal drugs in the post in return for your open source project commits. (Yeah, a bit of hyperbole there, but still...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Bitcoin_by_country

[wyager]

>With the difference that other fiat currencies are spectacularly unlikely to be declared illegal in your jurisdiction.

So we've gone from "it's volatile" to "it's maybe, potentially, illegal at some point in the future"?

Well, there are a few reasons I wouldn't be worried about this. A) It's not likely that Bitcoin will be banned outright in most countries. B) If it were to be banned outright, you'd likely have plenty of notice and be able to sell it before the laws took effect.

Also, it is not as if the project is actually sending Bitcoin to the developers; it is simply making it available for them to claim. A more comparable analogy would be if a sweepstakes in Colorado told me I had won some free marijuana; even though marijuana is illegal in my state, I am not legally culpable unless I actually claim the winnings.

[bigiain]

True - like I said, I was being hyperbolic...

I still think the "potentially illegal at some point in the future" is a real consideration in the discussion about using Bitcoin "to store value in for the long-term".

As for the difference between "sending Bitcoin to developers" vs "making it available for them to claim" - think about how you'd feel if someone in Colorado was running a website saying "Donate marijuana to wyager for each of his upvoted HN comments!", then had your local police come round to your place asking you about"your" 7oz of illegal drugs? However "in the right" you are, being put in that position without being asked, and having "that guy" argue about whether he needs to stop doing it when you complain... I personally wouldn't want to be involved in those arguments, nor would I be at all happy about other people supporting :that guy"'s rights to keep doing it.

[ayrx]

> If it were to be banned outright, you'd likely have plenty of notice and be able to sell it before the laws took effect.

Ah, but who would want to buy Bitcoin in that scenario?

[wyager]

People in countries where it was not going to be outlawed, or customers who planned to use it for illegal purposes anyway.

[davidgerard]

Bitcoin is strictly supply-limited, but there are an unlimited number of altcoins.

(I see Bitcoin advocates pushing people to stop using altcoins. It's unclear to me what force they can put behind this admonition.)

[jevgeni]

True, if we expect the BTC FX risk to be lower, than the inflation risk of the best possible fiat currency choice, then BTC would be the superior choice.