

Goldman Sachs: Bitcoin Is Not A Currency - rukshn
http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/12/goldman-sachs-bitcoin-is-not-a-currency/

======
trevoragilbert
"'On net, more than taking off as a widely-used alternative currency, it is
much more plausible that bitcoin eventually has a significant impact in terms
of its innovation on payments technology, by forcing existing players to adapt
or coopt it,' the authors write."

Yup.

------
falconfunction
The inventor of BRICS with hedges in the other hand? Say it's not so!

------
lutusp
My irony meter just pegged: Goldman Sachs is sanctimoniously criticizing
Bitcoin as an unreliable medium of exchange, a shaky institution not to be
trusted.

Let's all savor this moment together.

~~~
rjf90
Yes this is ironic.

But let's not judge the article and assertion based on our preconceived bias
against Goldman Sachs. I think that their conclusion “We would argue that
bitcoin, and other digital currencies, lie somewhere on the boundary between
currency, commodity and financial asset” makes a lot of sense.

Really, Bitcoin does have more similarities to a commodity than a currency
(especially a fiat currency). It's fungible, untraceable, and unregulated.

~~~
lutusp
All true. One difference between Bitcoin and dollars is public perception
driven by multiple forces -- experience, some untested assumptions, and social
expectations. Alto TBTF (Too Big To Fail) plays a part -- we're not going to
allow dollars to fluctuate too wildly and destabilize the economy.

But another difference between Bitcoin and traditional media of exchange is
that Bitcoin relies on very good, utterly reliable software, and that doesn't
exist at the moment.

