Earlier quoted context omitted.
The entire history of fiat currency is a combination of warfare and currency collapse. Why was the Bank of England created? To wage war. Perhaps “wasting” 2% of the world’s electricity supply will look a lot better when civilization scale money laundering and currency collapse is a thing of history, not to mention the curb on national budgets being allocated to war machines!
Are you seriously arguing that money laundering or military spending will go away if Bitcoin is more widely used? Continuing this, “fiat currency” has a specific meaning in economics: it’s a currency not backed by a commodity. Bitcoin is a fiat currency because the only value it has is based on social consensus, making it exceptionally volatile, but at the time the Bank of England was founded the pound sterling was b…
Bitcoin fiat? That’s way off base. No serious analyst would lump Bitcoin in with fiat currencies. Why? Because fiat currencies are backed by government decree, used for tax payments, and can be issued ad infinitum by central authorities. Bitcoin ticks none of those boxes. It’s decentralized, with no central authority to pump out new units or demand its use for official transactions. Bitcoin is as far from fiat as you can get.
Regarding the Bank of England’s founding in 1694—let’s get our facts straight. It wasn’t about credit; it was about waging a war without the cash to back it up. This move marked a turning point, expanding the empire and cementing the British Pound as a reserve currency. This kind of dynamic isn’t ancient history; it’s alive and well, fueling today’s massive military expenditures. These are bankrolled by the fiat system’s ability to inflate currency and issue debt. And when fiat currencies collapse? It’s usually the losers of these conflicts who feel the burn. So, yeah, Bitcoin offers a real alternative to this endless cycle of warfare and financial manipulation.