With all due respect to you as a fellow contributor to Talkmarkets, that answer did not answer my question. It contained widely disseminated talking points. I also would like to know your association with Bitcoin. That includes with Bitcoin creators.

My question, author, is this: Since most currency is backed by a tangible collateral, what collateral backs bitcoin? If you take a loan out to buy a house, your house is the collateral for the loan. Money may be fiat but it is generally backed by some collateral. Money created is backed by collateral, whether base mony or broad money. I don't see the creation of bitcoin being backed by any real collateral at all. So how can it be money?

The Fed may have to expand the balance sheet further. If that is not necessarily bond demand will be on steroids.

Goldman is the point company for slime. I think it is pink slime.

At least Goldman makes money from being a primary dealer. How clever of them. Squid is really a name that is too nice. There is a snake like quality to Goldman Sachs.

I want to add that money determines value. Gold is determined by money. The price of Bitcoin is determined by money. So, money is money and Bitcoin is more like gold, or maybe fools gold.

This is the first bitcoin article I have ever read. It is proof the thing is pure speculation. That is very dangerous. If you can't afford to lose, don't play this. I think I lost brain cells trying to grasp the certainty of it when the author ends on an uncertain note. Bitcoin has more heads than Scientology. Like that many headed snake, Bitcoin is certainly massive speculation. And I still have no idea what it is. I know 21 million coins can't be a currency, that much I am certain of. Forbes says in many articles that it is an asset. Assets cannot replace central banks.

The alum set up the instability. And the firm warns of the instability its own alumni set up. Something is not right with that picture. Goldman must know there is a cap on rates. But they probably won't tell most of us even if they do. Goldman does not seem to worry much about its 44 trillion or so of derivatives. Somebody needs to find out why.

Goldman alumni pushed through the irresponsible tax and spend plan. Now Goldman warns it is pushing us into uncharted waters. I hope that people will see that there is something wrong here.

I think bank credit does increase the broad money supply while the Fed can increase the base money supply. I think there is something to your view. I just don't know how powerful regular bank lending is compared to base money creation. Somehow I don't think they are on the same level, though I can't explain it. But still an interesting article. However, on one point, it was the end of QE that was supposed to cause inflation. QE just drives up demand for bonds and causes asset inflation, not real wage based inflation.