Conventional theories of money assume that money is backed by precious metal (the theory known as bullionism) or by the state (chartalism) but Bitcoin is backed by neither. Economists also often define money as anything that serves as a medium of exchange, but Bitcoin isn't much good at that either (so far, at least). So does that mean Bitcoin is not money, or is the problem with these theories?
I have posted a paper on this question here, comments/responses appreciated:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2624371How Bitcoin isn't good as somethng that serves as a medium of exchange? it's the best ever. The fact we lack merchants isn't Bitcoin fault, it's people being idiot's fault. It will take time for merchants to spread, maybe one or two decades.
Bitcoin doesn't need anything physical to be backed with, scarcity has now been achieved digitally. I know the grandpas out there struggle to get this one.