Some people see that as a feature - a deflationary rare resource, which a government can't simply print more of.
If I just want to send funds from A to B, the current value of bitcoin in fiat [ USD / GBP / JPY ] is less important than being able to exchange it for the local fiat at each end.
If I hold those funds for a while at B - your absolutely right, extreme volatility is a concern. I would argue that as more people use bitcoin the volatility will go down [ large trades will be able to move the market far less, as the market will be so much larger ]
> If I just want to send funds from A to B, the current value of bitcoin in fiat [ USD / GBP / JPY ] is less important than being able to exchange it for the local fiat at each end.
Do you mean using bitcoin as an intermediary to send value across the globe; Ie. by exchanging your local currency to bitcoin and then sending it to the receiver (who might exchange it again)? I think for such a use case the traditional banking systems are superior.
> Some people see that as a feature - a deflationary rare resource, which a government can't simply print more of.
The problem with deflationary resources is that most people will never want to spend them - making them unusable as a medium of exchange. If you look at bitcoin forums, they are full of posts cautioning other users to hodl (hold on to their coins and not sell them). But if bitcoin is not used as a medium of exchange then what is it used for? Other blockchains (like ethereum described in the blog) imho offer much more interesting features.
If I just want to send funds from A to B, the current value of bitcoin in fiat [ USD / GBP / JPY ] is less important than being able to exchange it for the local fiat at each end.
If I hold those funds for a while at B - your absolutely right, extreme volatility is a concern. I would argue that as more people use bitcoin the volatility will go down [ large trades will be able to move the market far less, as the market will be so much larger ]