There's quite a bit of misunderstanding in that post, especially with respect to systemic weaknesses. And a lot of unsubstantiated claims and terrifying graphs (like that tweet graph as something desirable for currency inflation - what it also implies is your savings going up in smoke).
I'd love to find an in-depth debate on Bitcoin from an economic standpoint, but this is not it. It's just more of the same half-understood FUD. And it is a horrible idea when half-understood - IMO, it remains to be seen if it's a horrible idea when fully-understood.
BitCoin i svery similar to a gold backed currency. The fact that nearly all (?) currencies moved off the gold standard should tell you something of how economists view the gold standard.
If you are a subscriber to Peter Schiff's views then moving off the gold standard was actually a big mistake. The comparison to the gold standard is actually what makes me think bitcoin has some legs
How is bitcoin like the gold standard? Bitcoin is backed by what? It's more like a purely speculative currency. It's artificially scarce and worth nothing apart from it's perceived value. At least with gold there are many industrial uses for it. You can't do anything with a bitcoin other than trade it.
You have to pay taxes and also settle debts in the official currency. That alone gives it more than mere 'perceived value'. Oh, needing it to buy oil also helps.
Precisely. Holding an official currency gives you the ability to stop the government from putting you in prison for nonpayment of taxes. This is a real tangible value that is a sort of baseline value store for official currencies that does not exist for other currencies.
Power doesn't come from the gun, but from public legitimacy. In the same manner that it would be considered legitimate for someone to defend themselves with a gun.
Governments moved their currencies off the gold standard. Mostly for the self-interest reason of establishing greater control over their currency, often to inflate their way out of debt.
Whether a gold (or Bitcoin) standard is good for the world economy as a whole is irrelevant, since the governments hold the power to implement it (or ban Bitcoin) and will act in their self-interest.
The tweet graph is meant to correlate with desirable growth in money supply, something Bitcoin needs to be liquid. You can have growth in money supply without inflation.
I'd love to find an in-depth debate on Bitcoin from an economic standpoint, but this is not it. It's just more of the same half-understood FUD. And it is a horrible idea when half-understood - IMO, it remains to be seen if it's a horrible idea when fully-understood.