Bitcoin is more transportable

The argument

In an increasingly mobile and connected world, the ability to transport money across national borders seamlessly and cheaply will become increasingly important. People work in one country and support families in another, businesses buy and sell across jurisdictions, and individuals relocate more readily than any generation before them. The financial infrastructure they rely on was built for a less mobile world. Transferring finances within the existing system reflects that. A cross-border payment can take days to complete and cost a large amount, with the charge varying according to the sum being sent and the number of intermediaries it passes through. Each institution in the chain must be reconciled with the next, which is where both the delay and the expense come from — the money is not so much transported as handed along a sequence of separate ledgers. Bitcoin's design removes the sequence. Because it is decentralised, a transfer is recorded on a single shared ledger rather than passed between institutions, so it can be sent to anyone anywhere almost instantly and at a cost proponents argue is negligible beside what banks charge to move the same value. There is no correspondent chain to clear and no business day to wait for. The significance proponents attach to this is that transportability is not one feature among many but the property money has always most needed. A currency that cannot move to where it is wanted, quickly and without substantial loss on the way, is less useful than one that can, and the gap between the two widens as lives and businesses become more international. Because it is more transportable than the money the existing system moves, Bitcoin will grow increasingly desirable in the coming years — which is why proponents hold that Bitcoin is the future.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Bitcoin may be transferrable, but its use as a liquid currency is limited. Therefore, it will not replace other currencies. It can be useful for someone with a bank account in a foreign currency that wishes to avoid costly bank transfer fees. However, its utility as an everyday currency is limited. For example, a tourist visiting Italy from the UK cannot buy Bitcoins ahead of their holiday and spend them across Italy. They would still need to exchange them for euros, either at an ATM or by depositing them into an Italian bank account. This severely limits the cryptocurrency's utility.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] It is transportable, but not liquid, limiting its utility.