Frankly that's a couple depressing responses.
Oh dear.
I haven't given up hope in BTC completely, but there are some fundamental issues that need to be overcome that aren't built into the bitcoins system by its designer. For example: how do you convince people that they only need 0.2BTC to live comfortably for the rest of their lives (which is true in a world used currency of btc)? How do you convince them to spend everything above this amount if they want their BTC to be worth *anything* (especially when I know that if others spend
their money first, I benefit). If you can do that through persuasion, there's no reason to be depressed at all.
I'm not completely sure what santoshi's intention was with bitcoins - a store of wealth, or an actual currency. He's designed a store of wealth first, and currency second with the way it's limited (21M max) and mined (like gold).
The two things he addressed are: A digital transaction record that is difficult to control/shut down, and p2p hashing to create currencies and manage networks, which both excellently lend to stores of wealth.
Those are what bitcoins have given us, which are two stellar things imo, but because there is no inconvenience storing them (other than wallet security), their value is too high to trade. "I will get rid of my other stuff before I get rid of this" would be a common utterance in the minds of many, both now and in the future. The interesting thing about the Keysian way of thought is that it actually achieves greater economic activity (I don't want to hold onto $$), but the problem is it too easily disguises the tax on trade made by the controllers of currency, which is why everyone not in control hates it.
Fundamentally, a currency for
trade will represent the underlying exchange of good, or promise to pay. Bitcoins are a gold bar, when trade without direct exchange of goods (barter) requires nothing more than an IOU. They are completely different things, and money is an IOU which can be traded in lieu of a good of value, but everyone agrees they can use them in the future ("backed by govt"). Everyone with bitcoins now, has essentially earned them without earning them in the traditional sense (working for them). Why would anyone pay them their own work for that?
PS Does anyone else find it ironic that this forum considers the word bitcoin to be incorrectly spelt?