Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

I feel your comparison is apples and oranges, other than that the current structure of Bitcoin gives gain to early adopters, and early adopters / investors in a business potentially allows investors to have higher gains. However they are different systems.

Why can't the system exist just based on the incentive of the value that system brings? Why can't that be reward enough? The issue here is allocation of resources - to build and implement this structure and have it being adopted. The reason this is getting exposure is because businesses can make a profit, in a de-centralized Ponzi-scheme like structure - and with it being de-centralized giving it a huge amount of momentum and putting it to a holistic scale, where there can be lots/"unlimited" players perpetuating the system in different ways.

An alternative is the government implementing this system - and then why not the government (society as a whole) make those gains/rewards that occur? And I'd more imagine an international government than individual nations.

What I am trying to contrast it to is how it would look if everyone was already in this system, and then furthermore, if they were all brought into the system at once - having it mirror current resources and ownerships. This isn't easy to conceptualize either, as people's time is a resource - and what's the minimum value of a base unit of time?

Yes, giving reward speeds up how quickly the system will exist or seemingly be adopted by people, though it doesn't mean it's actually implemented in a secure and stable way. Its competitor is essentially money, so people who want to keep the status quo of money in place will be a very strong friction against Bitcoin. When people buy Bitcoin with real money, if they are the last ones, what they get from each Bitcoin will be less than what the early adopters do - which I feel is a very large disincentive for Bitcoin ever being fully adopted by everyone. And if 90% of people are now using Bitcoin for transactions, how much is real money actually worth? Those "late" adopters will not have places to spend that money, fewer and fewer, and so they end up absorbing the downside or rather they end up paying for the upside that current investors / early adopters are gaining. Is this wrong logic? If not, how is this fair? Simply saying "don't be the last!" isn't really an adequate response either. The value of real money won't decrease any time soon, though as a system similar to Bitcoin has higher adoption rate there will become a tipping point where people just won't accept real dollars in exchange for Bitcoin because they won't have as many places to spend it, it won't be as easily "liquidated."

The why is so you can create a system that doesn't punish or put "later adopters" at a disadvantage. If putting $1 in of current money into the system, and then the equivalent of $1 into the system 5 years from now gains you the same value, then that would be fair and balanced. There being a fixed amount of Bitcoin, that isn't structured to be immediately distributed to 100% of existing money, is a problem. It's currently structured to be a land grab, where land is a finite resource.

Perhaps I am missing some foundational understanding of how Bitcoin works and that is skewing my understanding and answers.

People won't accept Bitcoin for actual goods and services if they don't believe it will hold its value. Or more precisely, they will require you to pay x% more in Bitcoin (at current exchange rates) where x is a premium to account for the expected loss in value over the period they expect to hold the Bitcoins, plus a margin for risk. If that premium happens to be higher than the cost of transacting in an alternative currency, Bitcoin is useless as a means of exchange.

Personally I'd see "governments have a huge incentive to outlaw it" as a pretty major inherent inferiority in something purporting to be currency too...

I don't think you're understanding Krugman's point.

If the gold price collapses, you can sell it to jewelry and electronics manufacturers at some (low) price point. Gold has a weakness as a store of value because this price point is a lot lower than its market price during good times - and this is why Krugman is also not in favor of it as a store of value.

If the price of the dollar collapses, you can sell it to the Fed (usually indirectly - the Fed sells debt and then sits on the proceeds). This floor is pretty solid, cf. Volcker's recession in the early 1980s.

If the price of Bitcoin collapses, you can't sell the electricity used to produce it onto the grid - that electricity is a sunk cost. So what provides a floor to the Bitcoin price if for whatever reason its value suddenly falls? Probably only its utility as a medium of exchange, which in an era of electronic exchanges lasting fractions of a second probably doesn't provide a huge demand for the stuff.

Obviously. Krugman wields his power at NYT to troll market anarchists / public choice theorists and not much else.

It has to be structured such that there is first mover advantage otherwise there is no incentive for anybody to get on board and make it a thing in the first place.

The redistribution of wealth is something that we've learned to deal with once already (progressive taxation) so hopefully we can learn how to do it again with cryptocurrencies.