No.
> Why can't it be both? If I expect my Bitcoin to appreciate 5% per year I might be willing to spend it to buy my weekly groceries.
You might be or might not be. I assure you, the majority will not be willing to buy groceries using a deflationary currency. They'll switch to an inflationary currency instead.
> No.
Hmm... so gold cannot be a currency?
I'll bite the bullet though:
> Hmm... so gold cannot be a currency?
Everything can be a currency. Ascorbic acid could be a currency in the future if the humankind moves to planets where Citreae are hard to find.
If I'm not mistaken, the topic was about the effectiveness of bitcoin as a currency.
You said earlier that "Currencies are enforced and controlled by central, powerful authorities". There is no central authority for gold yet it has been a currency for thousands of years. You seem to accept the special status of gold by implying that a cryptocurrency could be effective as a currency if it was backed by gold. So my question is what makes gold so special? Why can't the current design of cryptocurrencies be just like gold, only more convenient?
I see, the correct version would be: Fiat currencies [...].
> My point is that gold has similar properties to Bitcoin.
I agree with your point.
> Why can't the current design of cryptocurrencies be just like gold, only more convenient?
Cryptocurrencies are a lot like gold. But as you said, gold is around for centuries. Can you bet 10 million USD that bitcoin will be around next year?
Are you saying that gold can be a currency but Bitcoin cannot?
> Bitcoin or any cryptocurrency can work as an asset but not as a currency given the current design.
Why can't it be both? If I expect my Bitcoin to appreciate 5% per year I might be willing to spend it to buy my weekly groceries.