Traditional economists have mostly all dismissed Bitcoin as a poor example of money based on a three-part definition: store of value, unit of account and medium of exchange. I just finished a romp through Charles Wheelan’s “naked money” and subsequently but coincidentally jusneth’s article Suitertunity Cost, The Longitudinal Price Paid to Invest in Libertarian Ideology, which both actually relate to each other fairly well. So much so that you’d be forgiven for thinking that jusneth had also just completed this book and written his thesis directly upon this Introduction to Money 101. The one unsettling thought I’ve had though since completing these readings is that they both resolved on a common thought: Bitcoin is not really money. It’s purely an experimental tool that has one purpose, which is that of regulatory arbitrage. I don’t have nearly the economics background of Mr. Wheelan, but let’s not pretend like the Fed is any less of an experiment than Bitcoin.