Shutterstock photo

Exactly one year ago I embarked on a journey. I sat down to write my weekly column on Bitcoin for the first time. At the time I was somewhat skeptical. As somebody with a background in the interbank foreign exchange market, my interest at the time was almost purely that of a trader. This “new currency” had displayed remarkable volatility, and where there is volatility, there is potential for profit. Beyond that my knowledge was, I should say, somewhat limited and fairly typical. I had heard the bad stories: Mt. Gox’s collapse and various tales of criminals attracted to the anonymity that Bitcoin offered, but that was about it.

Of course, before I wrote I did some basic research, but not enough to completely remove the feeling that this was a fad, a fascinating experiment with a limited lifespan. The fanaticism of what were at that time Bitcoin’s loudest supporters was dispiriting, and served to increase my doubt as to the concept’s long term viability. I was not a natural believer in the extreme, somewhat anarchistic, strain of libertarianism that saw digital currencies as a blow to the power of government. Plus, the paroxysms of rage directed at any questioning of any aspect of Bitcoin was, to say the least, a little off-putting.

Over the last year, however, I have come to appreciate the Bitcoin community, where there is undeniable passion at the extremes. Additionally, a year ago, the members of the “anti-Bitcoin” brigade were as vocal and ubiquitous as the supporters, but they seem to have drifted away.

The attitude of big money has changed too. When I started, I don’t believe there was a major bank that had done anything but dismiss the idea and warn customers not to get involved. Now hardly a day goes by without another bank releasing some kind of ringing endorsement of Bitcoin, or rather the technology behind it.

As I wrote back in April, however, this is not necessarily a welcome development. Big businesses of all kinds generally follow a pattern when challenged by new technology: First they ignore it, then they attempt to fight it, and finally, when it becomes obvious that the fight can't be won, they try to buy it. We seem to be entering the third stage now, so those of us who see the long-term advantages of Bitcoin should be on our toes. Big banks have failed to discredit the idea, now the danger is that they will just buy it.

The most important thing I have discovered over the last year is that there are a large number of people that, like me, simply see the huge potential and advantages of a digital currency, but question some aspects of the conventional wisdom surrounding it. They don’t want to use Bitcoin as a hammer with which to smash governments, but are happy to buy in, both literally and figuratively. They understand the desire for privacy, but also accept that in a world of terrorism and exploitation, trading some of that privacy for safety is necessary. They have no intention of using what degree of privacy that remains to shield criminal activity. They are not, therefore, implacably opposed to regulation of the businesses surrounding Bitcoin; they just want such regulation to be done with as light a touch as possible.

None of this means, however, that there are no foreseeable problems on the horizon. I doubt that adoption of Bitcoin will become so ubiquitous as to truly challenge the existence of fiat currency, but if it even comes close, it will take us into unknown territory. According to many, there are enormous potential problems with a deflationary - sorry disinflationary (political correctness among Bitcoin supporters has not completely disappeared) - currency model. It could be that there doesn’t have to be such problems. The divisibility model for Bitcoin requires looking at things differently, but still seems to allow for economic expansion. When and if we get to that point, though, nobody can be sure of the long-term effects.

Perhaps the biggest change I've seen while on this year-long journey has been in the tone of public debate on the subject. Even the critics now seem better informed and voice legitimate concerns. It is now rare to see the kind of ignorance that leads to Bitcoin being called a “Ponzi scheme,” for example, and those that write positively on the subject are no longer required to pass some kind of ideological purity test before being accepted. I would like to think that what I have written, and its publication in these relatively mainstream pages, has helped that in some small way, but that is probably a little too arrogant. Whether it has or not, though, I am grateful for it and look forward to another year of informed and informative comments ... keep ‘em coming!

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.