Last weekend I spent some time reading the hilarious site Buttcoin, a blog which chronicles the wacky adventures of Bitcoin and its cult-like following. Obviously some bitcoiners get upset at this and launch their counter attacks in the comments section. Last night I spied this quote in a comment defending Bitcoin:
-more stable than some other real world fiat currencies (from underdeveloped nations)
Okay couple problems with that. First, there are many places in the world which have unstable currency, but you’d be hard pressed to find currency more unstable than Bitcoin. Most of the time the problem with currency like that is hyperinflation, in which case the value is going steadily down. Even then, this currency is better than Bitcoin because people in countries with hyperinflation were or are still able to use their money, albeit in massive bricks of cash, to buy things. In other words, back in the days of the old Turkish lira or the Zimbabwean dollar, ordinary food products might cost you millions or tens of millions in the local unit of currency but people could and did buy their daily necessities with it. Not so with Bitcoin.
But there’s something else about that defense which looks…familiar, real familiar. Do you see it yet? Here’s a person claiming that bitcoin is legitimate, the future, fiat currency and the US dollar going down, then when the issue of stability is raised they change the goalposts and compare bitcoin to currency in the developing world, as though that’s something to aim for. Where have I heard this mode of arguing before? Where? Where?!