Not really. Anyone who is confident in the mainstream view of money, which requires the existence of a bank or government of some kind, would quickly dismiss Bitcoin. If I cannot pay my taxes or mortgage with it, why should I accept it?

(And of course, if I can pay my taxes and mortgage, how can anyone claim to have removed the central authority from money? Just like the gold standard, nothing would prevent a government from changing its mind about whether or not to accept Bitcoin for tax payments.)

Like I said, if you already believe that money can exist without a central authority, Bitcoin simply serves as validation. Otherwise it does not really change anything, because if you accept mainstream views of money, then the premise of Bitcoin makes no sense at all.

You think Bitcoin is a decentralized store of value? Tell that to all those people whining about the Mtgox bankruptcy proceeding, which is being resolved by paying for the lost BTC according to the price in Yen at the time Mtgox declared bankruptcy which is a tiny fraction of the current prices. When push comes to shove the "value" being stored is measured in fiat currency, with all its associated central authorities.

> You think Bitcoin is a decentralized store of value? Tell that to all those people whining about the Mtgox bankruptcy proceeding

That is a gross misrepresentation and a misunderstanding of the point of a decentralized store of value. "All those people whining about the Mtgox bankruptcy proceeding" were not using a decentralized store of value. They were using a centralized broker that handled things for them. If they kept their own private keys and managed their coins directly, in a decentralized way, they would be still whole today.

> Tell that to all those people whining about the Mtgox bankruptcy proceeding

Not sure what your point is, dollars(cash) can be stolen as well.

The context: MtGox is currently going through a bankruptcy proceeding in Japan. The complaint right now is that the creditors i.e. people who had accounts with positive BTC balances when MtGox declared bankruptcy will be repaid in JPY, according to the price of their BTC balance when MtGox declared bankruptcy in 2014. Since then, the value of BTC has obviously increased quite a lot, so much so that MtGox can actually use its remaining BTC assets to repay those creditors, leaving plenty of BTC to pay the shareholders.

In other words, even if you think Bitcoin acts as a "store of value," that still does not make it "money" according to the law. You can have 1BTC or 100BTC, but the law is only concerned with the monetary (i.e. fiat currency) value at some particular time (not necessarily right now).

Ergo : Don't trust banks.

...the same would apply if I had promised to pay you in BTC and then failed to make that payment. This is not really about trusting banks.

Actually it is.

> Anyone who is confident in the mainstream view of money

That belief structure is being challenged as we speak.

> Tell that to all those people whining about the Mtgox bankruptcy proceeding

The only thing that proved, is that you can't trust a bank.

Gold and silver were a decentralized store of value from about 600BC till 1935AD, so ~2500 years. FDR and Congress made owning gold illegal in 1934 and then the dollar went off the gold standard in 1971. Previous fiat currencies have usually not lasted more that a few generations before they blow up. Now is about the right time for that to happen.

Reading history is fun and can help one understand the present. I'd highly recommend it. "Debt: The first 5000 years" is a great book and a good start at trying to understand what money is/has been.

> it made it possible to create a decentralized store of value without the need of a central authority

In itself, that always existed: it's called gold and gems. It's the most primitive store of value ever- modern economies were born when we went past it.

Gold and gems can't be instantaneously and safely transacted over the internet.

Name-calling cryptocurrencies "primitive" when they're clearly not doesn't lend a lot of weight to your argument.

Yes, bitcoin is better than gold in that it's virtual and can be transferred over the internet. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a store of value like gold is, and not a currency.

> Name-calling cryptocurrencies "primitive"

I called gold primitive as a currency. And made an argument for bitcoin (specifically) being similar to gold.

Edit: btw, gold 500 years ago had the same exact property of bitcoin today: it was immediately transferable to anybody you were in contact with and could buy goods from. That didn't make it better.

BTC cannot be instantaneously transacted at all, over the internet or otherwise.

It's closer to a commodity than a currency: fixed supply. In fact, the IRS is treating BTC as a commodity, to be valued, for tax purposes.

You should probably at some point recognize that everyone doesn't live in America

Oh sure, US was just demonstrative: I think commodity is the right mindset, both as a user and as a community. Banning it's not going to happen, taxing it will be tricky, and it may be premature to rework anybody's tax system just for BTC.

Pretty sure paper says it is a p2p cash system. The goal wasn't a store of value that was a natural side effect of the limited supply and the utility of the network effect from being a means of transacting.