Actually, the best we could hope for has much, much higher volatility than gold: there are vast reserves of gold available and the oceans contain about 9 pounds of gold for each person on earth, 100x the total amount of gold mined throughout human history. There are many old mines that could be reopened in a few months or years if the price would justify it.
On the demand side, there are technical uses of gold, medical and jewelry. So we clearly have demand and supply curves that are pretty flat and a price driven by fundamentals, yet we see significant volatility, especially related to gold's speculative and monetary use.
On the other hand, Bitcoin is a digital asset designed purely for speculative and monetary use. It has NO fundamental demand and an almost vertical supply curve. There's no way to price a Bitcoin on it's fundamentals, the only driving factor is "what other people think". As a future PhD in economics, let me tell you that is not conducive to stabilization, quite the opposite, it's prone to violent and self-sustaining boom and boost cycles.
If it continues to become more useful as a payment network, the value will grow and the volatility will go down.
2: "encouraging hoarding": no, this is not what was observed in practice with Bitcoin. I can't remember if it was Bitpay or Coinbase, but they have explained in a blog post seeing the exact opposite effect: during a Bitcoin bubble, people tend to spend or sell more bitcoins (to cash in on their newfound fortunes).
While run-away inflation and run-away deflation are both awful, an economy which slowly inflates is better than one that slowly deflates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/world/asia/17japan.html?pa...
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_06/b42140145...
http://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap70c.pdf
http://www.kyotobank.co.jp/houjin/report/pdf/201305_02_e.pdf
- Japan's GDP grew by 12% between 1990 and 2010, from 430 to 482 billion Yen (the NYT author incorrectly assimilates it to "an economy remaining the same size"?!)
- GDP per capita is 16% higher in Japan in 2010 than it was in 1990 [1]
- The NYT article gives absolutely zero other economic numbers, no objective evidence, nothing (it merely gives annecdotal evidence as in "so and so lost their house")
Why is this NYT article so bad and vague, when economic indicators I quoted above ARE actually (slightly) improving? I am not the only one to criticize it, see this response by the Center for Economic and Policy Research: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/deflating...
[1] http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/weor...
A downward price trend encourages splurging, which provides excessive liquidity. This creates a feedback loop, resulting in Zimbabwe. Bitcoin opponents have a vested interest; the desire to attack something you missed out on due to your own lack of foresight is a known psychological effect. I don't necessarily believe all of the above, but it's a pretty symmetric mirror image of the opposite argument. You could go up a notch and make the case that inflation is worse because at least an upward bubble has to end eventually whereas a downward crash can keep going down forever until the currency is replaced. I'm known for my stance that finite supply cryptocurrency is probably more deflationary than optimal (though my concerns are more about wealth concentration and the potential for use of seignorage revenue for secondary purposes rather than some idea that spending is good), but there are good reasons why one might think otherwise.
As for gold, an important point is that gold's volatility is quite recent. Before 1971, and especially before 1913, it was actually quite stable:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/charting-price-gold-all-way-ba...
Yes, that's a 6x margin that maintained itself over six centuries. The 18th century fall and the 16th century fall can likely be attributed to the sudden introduction of new supply in North America; that's an uncertainty that cryptocurrencies do not have. I don't know why gold was stable before but is not now; perhaps it's the fact that a fixed-supply commodity is stable if used as a currency but not stable if used as a form of black-swan insurance. The former use case might have more constant demand, or price stickiness might play a role.
I'm honestly not sure what will happen. Maybe cryptocurrencies will die, maybe BTC will die but others succeed, maybe BTC will become gold 2.0 and other currencies will take on other roles (if this happens, environmentalists at least would be quite happy given gold miners' current track record), or maybe something else entirely. I do agree one-world-currency domination is exceedingly unlikely though.
@1: A trade alone does not help BTC stabilise. We ARE seeing an increase in BTC trade, but all of this is pegged to local currency, and usually traded out for that immediately. As it is held for a very short period, there is no real effect on price, and is essentially the same as cashing out.[1] What might help BTC stabilise would be if there were a true, significant BTC economy, that is, items priced in BTC, rather than pegged to local currency. When I wake up tomorrow I can reasonably expect my loaf of bread is going to cost the same as it did when I went to bed. But that can't happen (yet) with BTC, because pegging goods to BTC carries far too much risk due to the volatility. Frankly, I can't see an attractive way to get to a situation where there is a substantial, viable BTC-first economy-- displacing local currencies as the first-choice isn't going to be easy. The only thing affecting the price of BTC is people buying and continuing to hold BTC (ie, in the absence of a real BTC economy-- speculators).
Further, I’m sure you can paint BTC stability as improving/worsening based simply on altering the time frame involved. The fact is the volatility is way too high (for consistent pricing), and we certainly don't have enough evidence to predict the future. You might have thought it was stabilising in October of last year before all hell broke loose.
@2: Not really a coherent argument there. An upward price trend (existing for whatever reason) encourages hoarding, which reduces liquidity. This creates a feedback loop, resulting in bubbles and crashes. Deflationary + speculation inherently leads to this, and we've seen it over and over already with BTC. Again, there is a chicken/egg problem because only speculators are interested in it, making it volatile, making it no good for non-speculators, which keeps it volatile! I think the best we could hope for is a little worse than gold (as it continues to be mined), which AFAIK still carries a significant amount of instability.
All this is not to say that bitcoin can't, or won't, be a long term success. It may well be; it has first-mover advantage, there is significant vested interest in it succeeding from those who have bought in, and it has a vast computing army. But it could be displaced. Or marginalised by an unlimited number of clones.
1. Ironically it is in a way simply passing half the transaction cost onto the customer.