> The only 3rd party it eliminates is the issuer

I disagree with this (or it is such a fundamental elimination, the `only` in that statement is misplaced). How else can we use money online? Either there is a third party that somehow guarantees the transaction or I need an independent way to determine whether the money you send me is real. 

In removing the issuer, Bitcoin also removes (or allows people to remove if they want to) the need for a proxy when making payments online. Prior to bitcoin there was no way to make a payment online without using a third party in addition to the issuer (I see that the issuer could have chosen to be the proxy, but they largely did not -- and still have not).

> But is predictable money useful?

People are using predictable money, so I reckon.

Or is the question you're really asking: "Does predictable money overlap with freedom money?"

I think yes, with the half of your definition I agree with

> without being wrecked by inflation

There's a lot to unpack here:

> the bitcoin we have is hard to understand and only seems to do one thing: remove the third parties.

I don't think that it is, I just think the desire to understand is low. People are more interested in projecting their wants onto it. 

> remove the third parties

Case in-point. This is non-understanding. The only 3rd party it eliminates is the issuer, that makes it predictable because issuers are not.

justin_shocknet

But is predictable money useful? all the people who have fucked off seem to have wanted money that did what they wanted (that was 

) while the bitcoin we have is hard to understand and only seems to do one thing: remove the third parties.

AskSN

bitcoin

Is Bitcoin already freedom money?

Scoresby

But is predictable money useful? all the people who have fucked off seem to have wanted money that did what they wanted (that was *predictable*) while the bitcoin we have is hard to understand and only seems to do one thing: remove the third parties.