With bitcoin you don't need "real money", you can exchange it directly person to person. In any case other countries that embrace bitcoin will always exist.
It sounds like you need to learn what money really is. Try and figure out why mankind chose shells and beads as money, then gold and then fiat. It will help you understand why it will choose bitcoin next.
> In any case other countries that embrace bitcoin will always exist.
Doubtful. None exist and unlikely any will exist in the future (at least not the type of countries many people would want to live int)
> It sounds like you need to learn what money really is. Try and figure out why mankind chose shells and beads as money, then gold and then fiat. It will help you understand why it will choose bitcoin next.
I'm sorry but you sound pretty much like the "flat earth" people... (maybe that was the point?)
> None exist and unlikely any will exist in the future (at least not the type of countries many people would want to live int)
El Salvador has already made Bitcoin a legal tender. I assume your no-true-scotsman addition of "any country somebody would want to live in" is meant to disqualify it? That's rather disrespectful to the 6 million people who live there in addition to being wrong.
In my opinion more countries will adopt it in the coming years and convert a small portion of their reserves to Bitcoin. Time will tell which of us is correct.
Some of us figured out that mankind ceased to use shells and beads (and many other things much more fixed in supply than Bitcoin) aeons ago because few people were required to settle their debts or taxes in them, and therefore their future value was entirely dependent on volatile collector sentiment rather than a broad segment of society needing them. I wonder when Bitcoiners will catch up...
> Why did the people/government choose to make bank notes legal tender, when they already had gold as legal tender
The notes came into play because of demand for credit, and the monopolist of legal force in the territory preferred to legislate legal tender as something they had control over and earned seigniorage from, which was incidentally also easier to maintain a balance of supply and demand in (if they were minded to do so).
What states absolutely aren't looking to denominate debt in is a volatile synthetic asset whose limited supply is mostly in the hands of shady, unproductive foreigners, which was created out of explicit hostility to credit markets but is now propped up entirely by a speculative asset bubble.
Now that you understand that, you can finally catch up with non-Bitcoiners!
Except it's not really money is it? It's a speculative asset.
> The difference is that they can never stop you custodying the bitcoin yourself.
Except if you can no longer convert it to real money ($/€/etc.) it becomes effectively worthless or at least start trading at massive discount.
Also the delusional/quasi-religious rhetoric is getting old. Can't you actually try to think of any rational and/or substantiative arguments?