Måske - det var primært for at sætte tingene i perspektiv uden nødvendigvis at lave en direkte sammenligning. Jeg mener, det er langt bedre end en valuta, som fx kroner, euro eller dollars, hvor den udstedende myndighed i princippet kan sidde på 90% af valutamængden i morgen, hvis den beslutter det. Og det gælder naturligvis stadig, at diskussionen kun er relevant for valutaen Bitcoin, men er irrelevant for betalingssystemet Bitcoin, som for både køber og sælger kan fungere uafhængigt af kursudsving. |
I dag havde Marc Andreessen, manden der gjorde webbet populært, en fremragende artikel om Bitcoins potentiale hos New York Times:
What kinds of digital property might be transferred in this way? Think about digital signatures, digital contracts, digital keys (to physical locks, or to online lockers), digital ownership of physical assets such as cars and houses, digital stocks and bonds … and digital money.
All these are exchanged through a distributed network of trust that does not require or rely upon a central intermediary like a bank or broker. And all in a way where only the owner of an asset can send it, only the intended recipient can receive it, the asset can only exist in one place at a time, and everyone can validate transactions and ownership of all assets anytime they want.
...
I hope that I have given you a sense of the enormous promise of Bitcoin. Far from a mere libertarian fairy tale or a simple Silicon Valley exercise in hype, Bitcoin offers a sweeping vista of opportunity to reimagine how the financial system can and should work in the Internet era, and a catalyst to reshape that system in ways that are more powerful for individuals and businesses alike."
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/