> Problem is that this democracy/central bank is not stable in every country. So crypto provides real "internet money", with all benefits and drawbacks.

Except that, from a practical perspective, if you live in a country without a stable "democracy/central bank," using fiat from a stable country (e.g. dollars or euros) is a better solution than cryptocurrency in pretty much all cases. AFAIK, cryptocurrency isn't in proper circulation anywhere, so you're likely going to have to do the same kind of forex transactions to get it, plus you're going to need a computer and internet to use it. Also stable-country fiat also doesn't come with weird ideological monetary policy ideas baked in (e.g. "money should be deflationary!").

Well on your last point it does. "Money should be inflationary" is a "weird ideological monetary policy idea" it's just one that you agree with?

> Well on your last point it does. "Money should be inflationary" is a "weird ideological monetary policy idea" it's just one that you agree with?

The idea that money should be stable with mild inflation seems to be the consensus view of the people (in multiple countries!) who actually have responsibility for the economy as a whole, and the economies that have stumbled into deflation don't seem very healthy.

Deflationary money seems to mainly appeal to people who are most concerned about jealously guarding the value of their little private hoard. Bitcoin was likely designed by someone like that who happened to be a talented programmer.

Deflation implies that the medium of exchange function of money has malfunctioned. You can't use money both as a medium of exchange and a store of value at the same time. It just doesn't work.

Inflation ruins the store of value function of money, but a little inflation isn't a bad tradeoff if the medium of exchange function of money keeps working.

The reason for this bias is that our society defines itself through a high degree of the division of labor. If money stops flowing, the division of labor stops and without the division of labor we are going straight back to the stone age (hyperbole). This is why economic recessions and depressions are feared more than economic booms.

> using fiat from a stable country (e.g. dollars or euros) is a better solution than cryptocurrency

So how do you get your money out of the country when you are not allowed to get your money out of the country? Strap dollar bills on your chest, or just use crypto?

> So how do you get your money out of the country when you are not allowed to get your money out of the country? Strap dollar bills on your chest, or just use crypto?

For that scenario, the better question is: how are you supposed to get cryptocurrency if you're not allowed to get your money out of the country?

But that's not the scenario I was addressing, what I was addressing the circumstances that lead to the very real practice called "dollarization":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_use_of_the_U.S._...

> The U.S. dollar is also the official currency in several countries and the de facto currency in many others, with Federal Reserve Notes (and, in a few cases, U.S. coins) used in circulation.

A list is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_substitution#US_dolla...

> But it's clear that cryptocurrencies try to live outside of governmental control, which is of course where most of the benefit comes from.

I believe it’s naïve to expect that it will remain outside of government control. That it won’t get slammed with the same laws and regulations applied to fiat currencies.

Governments live on money. As alternatives gain traction, the governments take notice and start regulating. There’s a fair bit of historical precedence around this.

> it’s naïve to expect that it will remain outside of government control

Not sure what about crypto is outside government influence.

Crypto is regularly taxed, seized and landing people in jail. Countries that can't manage that wouldn't find an offshore bank account, as evidenced by their entire population of elites having one. "Government can't touch my crypto" is a founding myth.

Keeping crypto without the government being able to know or touch it: no problem

Make crypto-crypto transfers: no problem.

Of course when government cracks it down, it will be hard to turn into fiat or buy/sell legal stuff.

I'm thinking more of the cross-border uses which are more "in the news" recently.

But fundamentally, I believe we agree.

I don't think it needs to be beyond government control in the way you mean to be useful. It just needs to be beyond the control of corrupt actors, in government or elsewhere. I don't mind the government being able to tax my crypto gains - I mind the people in it being able to bail out their golfing buddies when they gamble too aggressively on junk bonds.

It's counterintuitive to think that a financial instrument that increases transparency would make people more difficult to govern, and it would - unless the government is very corrupt.

> it's clear that cryptocurrencies try to live outside of governmental control

As a species, we have developed government control because in general, large-scale anarchy doesn't work well.

But that's in the vacuum of some other kind of authority. In the case of crypto, there's still authority. It's just algorithmic instead of human.

Or rather, it's given into the hands of those few who understand and control the algorithms.

> As a species, we have developed government control because in general, large-scale anarchy doesn't work well.

Not really. Society has long since been a push and pull between governmental control and anarchy of disobedience rendering some control irrelevant or impractical. And we are much better off for that - governments worst authoritarian instincts are frequently tempered by the general public simply ignoring their pronouncements.

Yes, but North Korean control is also not really desirable.