Bitcoin is fundamentally sound

I am defending the contention that Bitcoin is fundamentally sound as money. I have defended two statements in order to prove such contention. I have stated: 1) Bitcoin meets the definition of money 2) Bitcoin is superior to its competition (ie other monies). My opponent has either gotten confused or decided to play semantic games. Bitcoin being fundamentally sound as money is not necessarily the same as Bitcoin being "sound money" according to some obscure book from the late 1800s. The following characteristics are necessary traits, fundamentals, of money: 1) It operates as a store of value (1 & 2 from leading academic Mankiw as well as basically all economists. Mankiw, N. Gregory. Principles of Macroeconomics. Mason, OH: Southwestern Cengage Learning, 2008. 338-39. Print. ) 2) " unit of account 3) " medium of exchange (Adam Smith http://geolib.com... also from Mankiw, etc, but Adam Smith shows historicity of defintion.) My opponent has said that John M. Keynes is an Austrian Economist. All his points are now rendered completely invalid. My opponent has said that Gold is stable because its value doesn't change. This is crazy. The value of gold fluctuates wildly in both real and nominal terms over time. Looking at the above Adam Smith reference you may find the real reason gold is a preferred money: According to Smith it is because of their durability, divisibility intrinsic value and universal acceptance as a medium of exchange. Bitcoin possesses all of those properties and does so with reduced transaction costs relative to gold, as well as the benefit of being impossible to cease or regulate. My opponent has called Bitcoin a ponzi scheme. It is not. Bitcoin.org addresses this idea in their FAQ ( https://en.bitcoin.it... ). As stated there, Bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme because: 1 In a Ponzi Scheme, the founders persuade investors that they"ll profit. Bitcoin does not make such a guarantee. There is no central entity, just individuals building an economy. 2 A ponzi scheme is a zero sum game. Early adopters can only profit at the expense of late adopters. Bitcoin has possible win-win outcomes. 3 The fact that early adopters benefit more doesn't alone make anything a Ponzi scheme. All good investments in successful companies have this quality. Finally my opponent has suggested that the USD has an advantage to Bitcoin because it "has the ability to evolve and change." My opponent must not realize that Bitcoin has this ability as well, and in superior fashion. Bitcoin is open source, allowing extreme adaptation in a very fair way. Already several projects have spun off including Litecoin, Namecoin, Freicoin and others. Many of these are addressed in the following article: http://thegenerallifeblog.blogspot.com... In fact the USD cannot evolve or change except in value. Its intrinsic properties cannot change, whereas Bitcoin may intrinsically change through reprogramming. Bitcoin can be currency and it can also be other things, the USD can only be a currency, and a poor one which is predisposed to all the corruptions of centralized authority as well. In conclusion Bitcoin my opponent has still failed to uncover any weakness in Bitcoin. While we can debate semantics about "sound money" vs "money which is fundamentally sound," the idea should be relatively clear. Bitcoin functions as money very well and very well is defined as better than the competition. From the last round of debate to this one Bitcoin has already appreciated from about 75 USD to about 88 USD. The market itself agrees in the soundness of Bitcoin.