In economics, a public good is defined as a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
For a good to be non-excludable, it must be very difficult or impossible to exclude individuals from using it.
Bitcoin tends to fit this definition quite well, as it is one of the most accessible goods in the world. Anyone can participate in the Bitcoin network and use it for transactions or other purposes without needing permission, and it's challenging to prevent someone from downloading a Bitcoin wallet and acquiring some Bitcoin.
While technically it is not accessible by everyone due to availability and regulations of on/off ramps and internet availability #bitcoin more or less fits this definition.
For a good to be non-rivalrous, one individuals usage of the good cannot reduce its availability for others.
Once again #Bitcoin fits this definition quite well. Bitcoin, it is non-rivalrous to the extent that one person holding and using Bitcoin does not inherently reduce its availability for others. The blockchain technology underlying Bitcoin allows multiple users to transact simultaneously without significantly affecting each other's ability to use it. Bitcoin's divisibility also ensures there are more than enough satoshis to go around.
While one could argue increased fees in blockspace could lead to exclusion of some individuals, layer 2 protocols like the Lightning Network address these concerns quite well.
Overall, I think it's clear #Bitcoin is more a public good than it is not, especially when you consider it's truly global and decentralized nature alongside it's non-excludability and non-rivalrous attributes.
While it may not fit the definition perfectly, I think this points to the fact that #Bitcoin is fundamentally unique and novel. Many established definitions and concepts within economics and beyond struggle to encapsulate the groundbreaking essence that Bitcoin brings to the table.
Do you think #Bitcoin is a public good?
