YES, it should. Becoming a medium of exchange of value and enablement of trade in small to large value will give an option of  currency not controlled by or manipulated any government.

"Should Bitcoin Just Be a Currency or Store of Value?"

I think it's possible to be a bitcoin currency that can be used anywhere and anytime, but it's not easy. Maybe the superpower country will always press the bitcoin in order not to make the currency that could harm the country's superpower

thanks

Store of value is a spook. Value is a spook. Currency is a spook.

My answer is to take a shot at the question itself, specifically the language. I think it is a given by most people that Bitcoin is both a currency AND a store of value, but the question is "should it just be....."

The use of the word JUST is what I would argue is a limiting factor, and the thing that we would do well to be careful about. 

JUST negates, over-simplifies and reduces, often to binary choices. If there is one thing that I have learned over many years of being human (since 1974 in fact, when I was born, on probation, in Leeds UK) it's that the world is a much more interesting, volatile and strange place. 

Are you JUST the barman, waiter, concierge, taxi driver, whatever? Or are you a complex and wonderful human being with a story to tell. 

Is shit going on in the world JUST the way that it is? Or is it like it is because it's by design somewhere along the line? 

You get my point? So, is bitcoin JUST a store of value/currency? 

Or is it much more? If I go to do a talk to people, and I introduce blockchain, approximately 1% have ever heard of it. If I mention Bitcoin, that number jumps to about 35%. So, even the word Bitcoin is a great way to engage people to talking about blockchain technology, and by extension some of the other incredible new techs out there. 

When I ask my clients for payment, I always ask for payment in Bitcoin now. Some do, some don't. I incentivise them to pay by Bitcoin. And this often creates interesting conversations which can get onto things like anarchism and libertarianism, the social contract and voluntaryism. 

Now, lets take aim at the word SHOULD. This modal operand creates imperative, a necessity, something that once again has a dualistic approach. If something SHOULD be, it creates the very idea that there is also not that thing, and that the NOT that thing is somehow bad. It once again often reduces the issue to something which is a subjective value judgment. 

For example. I SHOULD stop drinking. Well, that supposes that there is drinking and not drinking. What it doesn't do is tell us drinking what, drinking how much, drinking when, drinking where, drinking for what purpose etc. It simply  means we have reduced a small number of words, and the listener will make up the rest based on their existing programming. What I mean by this is what if I added the word WATER to the end of "Should I stop drinking...". That would give a very different meaning to the one you probably envisaged just a few moments ago. 

So SHOULD Bitcoin JUST be a store of value/currency? It really depends on where you are. I tend to think that it may be more than that, and the market will decide. Maybe bitcoin will be nowhere in a few years, because we will have evolved beyond it. But I know this, that reducing it into what it "SHOULD BE" centralises it, because it relies on a small group to make a decision as to what that specific thing is. And as Robert Anton Wilson (one of my heros) would point out, this is purely their belief, and you should never fully trust either your own, or someone elses belief. 

So, from that point of view then (and I apologise that this has turned into some sort of sociological and linguistic essay), I propose that to say Bitcoin SHOULD BE JUST a store of value/currency is to limit its true potential, to keep it's sanctity as a movement, an idea, a revolution. 

Che Guevara is dead and gone, but his legacy still lives on, even worn on the t-shirts of people who don't even know what he actually did or his history. I postulate that Bitcoin has a place in the annals of history too. It may or may not survive to create utopio, but right now, in 2017, I would argue that it is a meme in itself, and one which has given rise to many other great memes, some which will play out well, and others which may fall by the wayside. 

That SHOULD JUST about do it.....

I think it should be used more throughout our daily lives to make transactions to buy a product. I think this will drastically increase the volume of trade of BTC making the currency less volatile as well as it would help it be recognised by a wider audience leading to further growth as well as more investment into the currency. However, I don't think it will be used by anyone. I think most people will grasp tightly to their Dollars, Pounds or Euros but this will mostly benefit BTC enthusiasts.

Also, if it is available across the world to use in consumer stores think of all the time you will save as well as money as you no longer will have to convert your national fiat currency to another and pay extraordinarily high conversion fees.

However on the other hand bringing all this new attention and volume of trade will lead to the already excessively long transaction time to increase and people may start turning towards other altcoins such as Ethereum or Litecoin and I don't think it is great to have different organisations accepting different coins; it just adds more hassle as well as the loss of some money due to coin conversion fees. However, it could lead to currencies like Steem, Ethereum and other coins to be able to stand for themselves and not be drastically affected by BTC.


Moreover, it will take away from what everyone loves about BTC; it is anonymous. I can see in the future with many people using BTC on places like Amazon it would take away from the anonymity as someone's Bitcoin Wallet Address may have to be linked to their Amazon account which will contain one's name, address and other details.

In the end, I think it is better for it to be of Gold and Silver. Something to speculate over but it is not a great storage of money as the volatility does not ensure it.

This is the most I've ever typed regarding cryptocurrency haha.
Well, I hope you have a great trip to Manchester @thecryptofiend

The beauty of Bitcoin is that it can be whatever you want it to be. A store of value with a fixed supply. Yes! A trading instrument to gamble with..Yes! A currency to buy stuff with...Yes! So my answer is that Bitcoin has the flexibility to be whatever the "individual" needs at the time of acquisition. That's true financial freedom.

https://youtu.be/y7qs9qmndyE 

Thanks for the awesome opportunity here @thecryptofiend

My entry is the video above, basically I'm on the side of Bitcoin should be moreso an asset (storage of value) rather than a cryptocurrency. In a perfect world it would be both, but unfortunately we don't live in such a fantasy.

Bitcoin's main problems are with the public perception of things. It's unstable and highly volatile, it's slow and has high fees, and as it begins to go a little more mainstream it's reputation will be better however some will always still associate it with scams, thieves, the dark net, drugs, ponzis, etc. 

In order for Bitcoin to truly succeed as a cryptocurrency that is accepted worldwide and would have a chance to replace or at least be amongst the regular FIAT currencies, it would need to be welcomed by the masses. The average person is still confused by it and extremely skeptical. Don't get me wrong, I'm a BIG fan and advocate for BTC and similar, however it has a very lengthy journey up ahead of itself. It's got more use as an asset currently and to be treated like gold by the large investors. Maybe if there were drastic changes done to it, maybe it'd have a chance at being an "actual" currency but in its current state.. not so much. And IF there were such changes made, how would that have an effect on Bitcoin and the cryptocurrencies themselves?

Very interesting time we're living in, and I'm both nervous and excited to see what will happen over the next few years. Will our kids grow up using BTC? How many countries/governments/banks will recognize and accept it? Is it just a commodity for a select few who distrust the current system? So many questions, and only time will let us truly find out.

May the best selection win the 500 SP. I encourage many of you viewers to enter. Cheers :)

Hey @thecryptofiend any update?

First, I think that "store of value" and "currencies" are two different concepts.  I don't want Bitcoin to ever be viewed or recognized as a currency.  That would add it to the long list of currencies forced under the regulations of the central banks.  As far as tampering with the original design implemented in bringing Bitcoin into existence, I believe THAT should be preserved.  I think that building on THAT as a foundation -- separate and apart from the original blockchain -- is the 'best' way to take advantage and preserve the value of the original concept and blockchain.  I understand that this would cause a "split" in the value as people would probably want or need to partake in "both" versions; however, I think that is the "better" of two options as presented.  I think our generations to come will understand "iterations" as a natural flow of development and it will be critical to being able to appreciate and re-discover the value that it created "in history" and in the future for those that were present and participating in Bitcoin and the evolution of cryptocurrencies as a whole.  It is important to know that what will become "ancient" or "antique" in the crypto space will be around, intact and preserved with value for our coming generation.  Technology allows us this option -- why would we let outside forces make it about "capital gains" instead of the preservation of the creation that started an entire new dynamic and interactively controlled interface for, what will become, all trust-less transactions.

Bitcoin Cannot be both. It's fundamentally impossible to be both a unit of measure, and a store of value. 

First lets define currency: 
>a system of money in general use in a particular country.

So currency is money, which is defined as:

a current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively.

So money is a current Medium Of Exchange, a medium of exchange is defined as:

>A medium of exchange is an intermediary instrument used to facilitate the sale, purchase or trade of goods between parties. For an instrument to function as a medium of exchange, it must represent a standard of value accepted by all parties. In modern economies, the medium of exchange is currency.

So it's function is to facilitate the sale, purchase or trade of goods between parties.

Before coins were used, people recorded such things, or facilitated the sale, purchase or trade of goods through Tally Sticks. 

There was nothing wrong or problematic with that, it simply was a ledger, and it formed the basis for trading, sale and purchase.

>A tally stick (or simply tally[1]) was an ancient memory aid device used to record and document numbers, quantities, or even messages. Tally sticks first appear as animal bones carved with notches during the Upper Paleolithic; a notable example is the Ishango Bone. Historical reference is made by Pliny the Elder (AD 23–79) about the best wood to use for tallies, and by Marco Polo (1254–1324) who mentions the use of the tally in China. Tallies have been used for numerous purposes such as messaging and scheduling, and especially in financial and legal transactions, to the point of being currency.

So currency is simply the medium of exchange, and it represents a standard of value that all parties much accept. 

Currency therefore is the system of measuring and recording value. 

The two fundamental objectives of money, or currency is to denominate a common unit of reference of constant value and to maintain records of the value dividing process, both incoming and outgoing, debt resolved, and debt established.

In reality this functions as such:

The store of value is divided into however many units of value based on a common unit of reference of constant value. These are recorded as an account, and it expresses the debt in the account, and once the debt is resolved the account is closed. Therefore the only value is the actual store of value and not the units that were used to reference the value, money is only the representation of value, not value itself.

What is a store of value?
Anything that has perceived value.

Can a unit of representing value have any value itself?

For something to be perceived as valuable it resolves in terms of Scarcity, with the most abundant seen as not valuable. If a unit of measure is to have any value it would need to be an actual thing, be it a hash, or a cup, and not an abstract, a measurement, a representation.

Right now the question is, can bitcoin function as a common unit of reference of constant value and record the value in an account?

The first part, function as a common unit of reference of constant value, is obviously not compatible with bitcoin, and bitcoin in that respect cannot, as it's value is tied intrinsically to scarcity, and nobody can create more units freely to represent value. 

And it comes back on it's head, if I am attesting so many bitcoins to a piece of land, am I measuring value by a constant reference or only attesting that this piece of land is worth so many bitcoins that I'd like to have and exchange my value for. That's why every transaction involving currency as we see it now is simply a form of barter, no account is created, no debt is resolved, no common units that reference a constant  measure of value, and the thing of value is currency itself, for the thing of value that we barter for with currency.


Currency, is in function completed by tally sticks, just as measuring length and weight, is done by an instrument, that instrument itself is used to reference common units/divisions, and is not the units themselves or the divisions, in other words the instrument is not length or weights, itself, the concepts are abstract and can only be abstract, just like a unit of value.

This pdf, breaks it down even further if the contradictions between store of value and system of measurement aren't understood.

http://bibocurrency.com/images/pdfdownloads/How%20to%20Define%20Money.pdf


Now for the question should Bitcoin be a currency or a Store of Value?

Well the intrinsic difference is that people perceive money as a COMMON store of value, and not as a system of measurement, while believing that it satisfies the function of a system of measurement, so the question is more or less asking should Bitcoin be perceived as a Common Store Of Value? 

I don't think so.

Why not?

It's not intrinsically built into bitcoin to create new units at compounding interest, like our current dollar and other "currencies". But, the problem with bitcoin, is that once it's a common store of value and not pegged to other "currencies", it's units would need to be stable and be recognized as constant, and that cannot be possible as its value is always going to be based/resolved from Scarcity and Demand, regulating it will only lead to the problems that plague regulations now in the precious metals and currencies, with insider trading and collusive abuse.

Unfortunately, that's the reality, it cannot be both a store of value and perform the function of currency, and, as there is nothing built in to stop people from abusing bitcoin like precious metals by betting against the market, controlling a large part of the market, creating bubbles and other collusive actions, bitcoin I think is at best where it is now, before TSHTF, as a fairly decent store of value.

Honestly in the long run bitcoin has way better chance to retain and surpass its value than any other fiat currency. 

Why would i believe in any ponzi fiat currency, when banks are printing it like there's no tomorrow?

When people find out that inflation is through the roof with all the inflated currency and that they can't buy bread with the same amount the next month they are gonna run to the cryptocurrencies. And at that time true value of bitcoin shall be seen.

From my own investment in Bitcoin so far, i would say that Bitcoin is a very exciting prosperous fore runner of what will be the biggest change in human history. We speak of it now in broad terms but honestly.. we haven't begun to understand that once bitcoin will rise beyond our expectations, that 1 BTC will drive forward an entire generation as a family and products in the markets will go a few satoshi at the most.

Bitcoin will grow as a currency and i feel it should be the main focus, After all value is but an idea created by large communities, if we really wanted we could pay with a leaf from a tree, if you could convince enough people.

But then we would most likely have a world wide problem and we wouldnt want that! Also The value Material goods have when seen from a perspective is gonna drop aswell burglars will become jobless.

Imagine that; many Digital World Currency and not a single crime, Now thats heaven to me!

But Bitcoin will grow beyond anyone's expectation you watch and see ;)

Bitcoin should be a Store of Value, steem should be a currency

Bitcoin is the gold standard of the cryotocurrency world. It's where is all began. It's the blueprint from which most, if not all other blockchains were modelled. To spin off other features and complicate the original basline would not serve to improve any facet of the current blockchain and cryptocurrency technology. Any alteration or deviation of the original baseline from it's original purpose creates a risk of devaluing the entire cryptocurrency marketplace. It would be like mixing silver into gold; it may make it look shinier, but it will become impure and of lower value. Bitcoin is a currency, it is a store of value, and so that is how it should remain. Pure and simple.

IT SHOULD BE BOTH !  But the value of btc is unstable though

Well, I'm pretty clueless about cryptos so I'll just stand next to someone like you, point and say, "what he said!" but I did read the whole article and didn't upvote my own comment!

I think it should be a currency since it is already widely accepted by the general customers of internet activities so it should remain in it's current state

Bitcoin will eventually fail. It may have been the first, which gives it a permanent place in history, it will not stand. Once cryptocurrency becomes mainstream, something better will take its place. I think what that is should be mainly decided by solid research, but that's not how things work, is it?

Bitcoin is in a world of itself!  Like anything else nothin can be No 1  forever!  What people fail to see is that bitcoin is only a tool to make profits now with  buy low and sell high trading.  Sure it's a store of value and also a currency!  

It's what you want to do with it , which counts!  This choosing which it should be is hilarious!  Let me ask you if you bought it at $3,000, what would you do next? If you bought it at $800, then should you  buy and hold?  
I think it depends, how many you bought and  how much you willing to lose!
 I myself do buy and hold some, but I also use it as a tool to make more profits and build up all my heavy duty coins. So , yup it's a currency to me if I made hundreds of thousands, and if I had that much it sure is a store of savings for me. But I'm smart enough to sell and buy silver and gold, also a store of value! PERIOD!!
 Question really is, is fiat a store of value or a currency!  Go figure that one out!

Aloha Al