He doesn't get it.

I think that he does.

Hi,

What you say makes a lot of sense. As a payment network, perhaps analogous to SWIFT, bitcoin has a lot of potential. If it is only claiming to be a payment network rather than a form of money, my criticisms fall away. But the tone of my remarks on Bloomberg reflected my sense that believers in Bitcoin do claim that it is a form of money. Hence their criticisms of fiat currency, the invocation of nineteenth century free-banking, etc. It’s the latter that I was reacting to.

I suspect that the truth is in the middle. Smart advocates of bitcoin stress the payment network, and I have no quarrel with that. Not-so-smart advocates say bitcoin can be money, and here I am doubtful.

Sebastian

If someone is curious as to what I said.

Hello again,

I appreciate the prompt reply moreover because you're amidst writing a book and here you are having to respond to criticisms. But hear me out please and don't feel any pressure to reply; feel free later when you have the time if you so wish.

What I am gathering is that your main issue pertains to the unit of account, and that is understandable but I'm of the opinion it greatly misinterprets what Bitcoin is exactly. I assure you that all the hum and har about Bitcoin amongst serious individuals isn't because of the unit of account, that alone is relatively inconsequential, irrelevant and secondary although a requirement which I will get into later. What is far more important and key to note is that of the payment network. It is a global, open source financial network which has absolutely no regard for whom uses it and for what. It allows an economy to function globally peer to peer without intermediary and interrupted (given electricity & internet.)

You hear many making the argument that the technology is very impressive yet the unit of account worthless. The implication being that it is possible to divorce the two. The technical realities of the matter are that the two are inseparable, attempting to divorce the two removes the openness of the network and removes it's impartiality. Without the unit of account there is no means by which to transfer value across the network. Making it centralized (i.e USA Coin) will remove it's openness, it's ability to innovate, change and adapt. Without legislation and state repression against it I'm of the opinion that the open source network will become dominant.

What I think that you are missing is that it does not have to be priced in Bitcoin. The unit of account simply allows the entire system to function and operate. You don't even have to hold your wealth in Bitcoin whilst using the networt (See - https://bitreserve.org/ - founded by Hasley Minor (CNET.)) The main attribute of Bitcoin is the network, and it needs the unit of account to function. You don't have former heads of staff from large financial firms and multiple .dot-com entrepreneurs investing and joining Bitcoin companies because of the unit of account. It is the payment network. It always has been.

I simply think that you should give more thought to the matter before making blanket statements about a technology which has no historical precedent. Simply calling it private money does a great disservice to what Bitcoin is and what it can do.

Sincerely,

-redacted-