Re: And ...
quote: "The thing is, who other than criminals or speculators really want Bitcoins? If somebody could come up with a legitimate use that can't be fulfilled with existing currencies, surely the answer is to find a way of generating a financial product to fulfil that need. Bitcoins are basically a replacement for diamonds, and there are reasons why diamonds have never become widespread currencies.
Rather than downvote, explain why I'm wrong."
Currency is currency; barter tokens to enable the exchange of goods or services, and a "valid" currency is one accepted by both vendor and purchaser. We already have multiple currencies with variable exchange rates, so why would one more (or less) be an issue? If I am already at liberty to purchase goods for GBP, EUR, USD or CHF, why is BTC somewhow different? Since I live in the UK I'd struggle to find a "legitimate" use for EUR or CHF with local vendors. Doesn't stop them being "legitimate" currencies though, widely accepted (in certain geographic regions) and with published exchange rates for those geographic regions they are not accepted in.
If multiple vendors are willing to accept BTC, then BTC is a valid currency for those vendors, much like the Tongan pa'anga or Azerbaijani marat are accepted by some vendors, but not others.
The reason diamonds are not a widespread currency is also fairly obvious; we no longer use gold or silver directly as currency, so the inherent value of the tokens are irrelevant. All that is important is the stated value of the token, so there is little point trying to fit an appropriately sized diamond into something to give it value. If we move back to coins being made of something worth exactly the stated value, then I could see a point for diamonds, but that concept hasn't been used for some time.