Hearn: The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment

I must be old-fashioned, too. The explanation posted above is possibly the most coherent one I've read in any summary, with most references to Bitcoin involving the hateful (and dated) "cyber" prefix glued onto "currency", pushing all the shallow journalistic buttons about alternatives to the mainstream, "anarchic groups", radicals and "free-thinkers".

But cut through the hype and you're left with something that...

• Isn't widely accepted, relative to other well-known means of payment... Diners Club cards excluded. ;-)
• Has fluctuated significantly and rapidly in value for non-obvious reasons.
• Seems to involve doing business with organisations that even people with enthusiasm for the concept might have little familiarity with, meaning that random people are unlikely to trust the whole thing at all.

It might have been attractive for an individual to speculate on Bitcoin - there's even something sounding like that written in another comment here, and there are new stories about people who did well early on - but few ordinary individuals are likely to be successfully speculating on traditional currencies. Meanwhile, to retailers and the average person, any additional currency (traditional or not) can be a significant risk that is best eliminated if it appears a likely target for speculation. Just ask all the people who took out Swiss Franc loans over the years to get better borrowing rates than in their local currency.