One can also turn this point around: what requires the store of value to be the same thing as the medium of exchange? The store of value must be convertible into the medium of exchange, but that doesn't mean they have to be the same thing. Yet Krugman blithely assumes that they must be: "To be successful, money must be both a medium of exchange and a reasonably stable store of value." He doesn't even consider the possibility of, for example, an economy based on Bitcoin as a medium of exchange and, say, gold as a store of value. For that matter, he doesn't even bother to mention that very few people actually use dollars as a store of value: people don't keep their retirement funds in cash under the mattress.
It's true that there aren't many ways to exchange Bitcoin for actual goods or services or non-monetary financial instruments right now, but that's not due to any inherent inferiority of Bitcoin: it's due to the fact that governments and central banks have a huge incentive to either outlaw exchanges of Bitcoin for goods, services, or financial instruments like stocks, or at least impose artificial costs on such transactions that are high enough to discourage most people from making them. In other words, Bitcoin is not competing on a level playing field with other forms of money.
Personally I'd see "governments have a huge incentive to outlaw it" as a pretty major inherent inferiority in something purporting to be currency too...
The same applies to any type of money. Google "hyperinflation".
Also, how much of an effect this is depends on how long people expect to hold money in between transactions; see below.
they will require you to pay x% more in Bitcoin (at current exchange rates) where x is a premium to account for the expected loss in value over the period they expect to hold the Bitcoins, plus a margin for risk.
People do the same thing with dollars and other currencies based on the rate of inflation they expect, i.e., the rate at which they expect dollars to lose their value.
Also note that qualifier: "over the period they expect to hold the Bitcoins". In other words, people need enough cash to cover current expenses for some period of time; but that amount can be pretty small compared to their total wealth, and it gets smaller as technology advances and economies evolve. People used to get paid quarterly, so they needed enough cash for a full quarter's expenses. Then the payment cycle became monthly, and now many people get paid biweekly or even weekly, so they need to hold less cash to cover expenses. (More precisely, they need to hold less as a fraction of their total wealth.)
I'd see "governments have a huge incentive to outlaw it" as a pretty major inherent inferiority
It's "inherent" only in the sense that we're not likely to get rid of governments any time soon. Is that a problem with Bitcoin, or a problem with governments?
Individual people, perhaps not. But the US dollar is the most widely-held reserve currency in the world, followed by the Euro. Wikipedia states that approximately 2/3 of reserve currency holdings are dollars.
It's very simple: Suppose you used Bitcoins only to facilitate transactions. You'd identify some good/service you want to purchase, buy the appropriate amount of Bitcoin on the open market. You then transfer them to the merchant who then sells the Bitcoin in his or her local currency. In order for that to work, the value of Bitcoin must be relatively stable over the timescale of the transaction. If ratio of Bitcoin to USD (for example) goes up a few percent over a period of ten minutes, then you're either giving the merchant a "tip" or he is giving you a discount. Either way, both you and he don't really know the cost of the good you are purchasing until sometime after the transaction.
More relevantly, if Bitcoin were to catch on, people would probably keep some assets in the form of Bitcoin so that they don't need to pay Bitcoint <-> USD transaction fees on every purchase. People will not do that if the value of a Bitcoin often changes radically between paychecks. Frankly, I can't see Bitcoin being used by "normal" people until the value is relatively stable (say, in most months the Bitcoin-USD exchange rate varies by less than 10% over the course of most 30-day periods) for this very reason. Unfortunately, the 21 million coin limit will prevent this from ever happening.
There seem to be a large number of people who operate under the misapprehension that "Inflation Bad -> Deflation Good." Inflation is bad, but deflation can be just as destructive to an economy, and having the ability to conduct transactions in a femtoSatoshi does nothing to fix that.
The market price of bitcoin is determined by the number of bitcoin holders who think they will go down in value; as coins gradually transfer to the hands of people who believe they hold long term promise, the market price of 'loose change' available for transfer will rise; that rise in price will actually _increase_ the use of btc as a transfer mechanism because it will attract more people seeing BTC as a store of value, which increases the store of bitcoins held for long term positions and thus the market price of BTC, etc. The increase of its usage as a medium of transfer ALSO increases the market price of BTC; that interplay between new value-minded long term investors and new users of btc as a transfer mechanism is what has been pushing the price up continually. the entrance and exit of speculators in the market is a short term distraction that has the benefit of spreading awareness but the drawback of adding to conception as a bubble.
after about the 6th or 7th one of these 'boom and bust' cycles that triples/quadruples the market price, people will stop seeing this as a 'maybe' thing, and my guess is that will drive a massive one-time spike in the value.
This sounds backwards to me. If I think the value will increase, I'm not going to transfer them to you at today's price. So this will decrease the amount of transactions, making it less and less useful as a transfer mechanism. Which is exactly what people say is the problem with deflationary currencies.
If you do spend dollars, you don't lose anything by converting them to bitcoins just before spending them.
those 'unproductive' people holding incredibly valuable bitcoins will enable bitcoin to work as a dirt cheap payment processing system.
> Placing a ceiling on the value of bitcoins is computer technology and the form of the hash function… until the limit of 21 million bitcoins is reached. Placing a floor on the value of bitcoins is… what, exactly?
However, the analysis fails again because he wants to decouple bitcoin's role as a store of value from it being a medium of exchange. To which I would like to ask: What's the point of a store of value if ultimately it cannot be exchanged for something else ?
That's like saying that the energy inside an atom's nucleus has no value. (prior to the discovery of controlled nuclear fission) Of course it had value but we couldn't use it without accessing it and tapping into it somehow.
Bitcoin's value is closely coupled with its utility as a medium of exchange, which is based solely off some pretty excellent technology and principles.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think its current value in terms of USD/Euros/etc. is necessarily linked well to it's current utility. However, there is value in being able to transfer something (a bitcoin or parts of it..) that no one else can transfer to someone across the world securely and almost instantly with little to no centralized control.
This ability is what places a floor on its value, whatever that hypothetical floor may be.
This is what excites the 'technical people' he mentions in his article. I don't expect non-technical people to 'get it' immediately, but people will get it, eventually. No one understood why email was important in the beginning either.