Bitcoin and Other Cryptocurrencies Are Useless, The Economist Says (economist.com)

With few uses to anchor their value, and little in the way of regulation, cryptocurrencies have instead become a focus for speculation, The Economist magazine said this week. From the story, which may be paywalled: Some people have made fortunes as cryptocurrency prices have zoomed and dived; many early punters have cashed out. Others have lost money. It seems unlikely that this latest boom-bust cycle will be the last. Economists define a currency as something that can be at once a medium of exchange, a store of value and a unit of account. Lack of adoption and loads of volatility mean that cryptocurrencies satisfy none of those criteria. That does not mean they are going to go away (though scrutiny from regulators concerned about the fraud and sharp practice that is rife in the industry may dampen excitement in future). But as things stand there is little reason to think that cryptocurrencies will remain more than an overcomplicated, untrustworthy casino.

Can blockchains -- the underlying technology that powers cryptocurrencies -- do better? These are best thought of as an idiosyncratic form of database, in which records are copied among all the system's users rather than maintained by a central authority, and where entries cannot be altered once written. Proponents believe these features can help solve all sorts of problems, from streamlining bank payments and guaranteeing the provenance of medicines to securing property rights and providing unforgeable identity documents for refugees. Those are big claims. Many are made by cryptocurrency speculators, who hope that stoking excitement around blockchains will boost the value of their related cryptocurrency holdings.

Comments

What next?

[Kenja]

I bet they'll say my Magic cards & Beanie Babies are useless as well!

Re:What next?

[Junta]

Do you actually use it as the negotiated salary? As in 'X' number of bitcoins a year? Presumably you do a last minute calculation based on a more stable currency and by the same token she presumably cashes it out pretty quickly. That's a problem for what is ostensibly a 'currency'.

It sounds like you may have had a positive experience, purchased X bitcoins, but by the time payday came to pass, you probably needed a lot fewer due to boom, so you had spare. Conversely, if you paid what *should* be enough for her salary, using X USD to acquire them, say a week in advance, but on payday your account is suddenly short, that's a big problem. As it stands, the only way to have predictable income/spend relative to real goods is to minimize the time from when it's a stable currency, to cryptocurrency, and back to stable currency again.

There's some interesting (albeit too wasteful of energy) technology things going on, but the non-technical context does not bode well for the current cryptocurrencies.

Re:Thus disproving their own premise, it exists st

[Pseudonym]

"All art is quite useless." - Oscar Wilde

It's not their best headline writing, but TFA makes the point clear: cryptocurrencies are not currencies, let alone useful currencies. Their only "use" is speculation, and to an economist, that doesn't count as "useful".

Re:Thus disproving their own premise, it exists st

[DontBeAMoran]

Just like the Internet has pseudoanonymity, so does BTC. For now, no one knows you're a dog.

And then you pay something in Dogecoins and your cover is blown.