And using a physical, commodity based currency like noble metals is NOT pure barter, thus everything you typed is completely irrelevant! It's the smallest abstraction away from barter needed in order to maintain things like removal of counter party risk, durability, divisibility, fungibility, portability, etc. I don't want to hear you lies about how bitcoin is the 2nd coming of god as money when it's not even fungible. Most of you guys are either delusional or disgusting liars.
Metals money is not stable in value because the supply is not stable. bitcoin cannot be ideal because ideal money is stable in value and bitcoin has no mechanism for targeting in this way. But its a good money. Far superior in this sense than any commodity could hope to serve. And so it will put pressure on our central banks to print money of a superior quality. I'm not keynesian but is how bitcoin works in relation to our existing financial system.
Every time a government over prints money or devalues, more citizens hear about and procure bitcoin, so there is something to compete with not and central banks are forced to tend to the quality of money on a vector they previously did not need to consider.
You can call me names all you want. Your argument isn't reasonable or founded.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43339.pdf In this case, for the Fed to maintain the same degree of monetary accommodation, it would need to undertake a compensating tightening of monetary policy. At a minimum, a substantial use of Bitcoins could make the measurement of velocity more uncertain, and judging the appropriate stance of monetary policy uncertain.
Also, a substantial decrease in the use of dollars would also tend to reduce the size of the Feds balance sheet and introduce another factor into its consideration of how to affect short-term interest rates (the instrument for implementing monetary policy).