What is really interesting and potentially useful about cryptocurrencies (beyond the mere intellectual stimulus, of course) is distributed ledger technology and the idea of digital money being issued by mainstream central banks themselves. The two are bound together by a common feature: a reduction of the importance of intermediaries. The distributed ledger technology behind bitcoin brings the attractive notion that, in principle, we don’t need any centralised settlement systems, any standardised systems that settle payments. The settlement system can be decentralised, thus potentially saving time. But let’s not forget how the system of payment confirmation works when distributed ledger technology is in play. Bitcoin makes many users confirm that a transaction has taken place. The process is very energy-demanding, akin to actual mining: it resembles all the processes employed in the past when we were dealing with physical money. Using classical commodity money requires physical investment; using bitcoin requires energy investment. So far it seems that distributed ledger technology would consume much more energy than standardised central clearing houses. That’s why we now use non-physical money without any intrinsic value – it is more efficient. Going back to any physical money would be like going back from PCs to typewriters. Maybe this is one of the reasons I haven’t so far heard of any distributed ledger technology being 2/3  BIS central bankers' speeches  used in the mainstream banking systems of Europe. Many institutions have been investigating the possibility, studying it, researching it, but that’s all.
This is to do with the fact that it is general price levels that can be influenced by monetary policy, and not the prices of items such as meat or nails. This is also to do with the fact that the positive effects of stable monetary value manifest themselves precisely because the players in the economy can rely on purchasing power which is not undermined. At the same time the Riksbank has, in various contexts, maintained that there can be reasons for ignoring effects on inflation which are thought to be temporary. The reason for this is that it is not often possible to influence inflation quickly enough to counteract transitional price impulses without this leading to larger real disruptions. We have said, however, that we shall give as clear an account as possible of what the temporary effects are and how we deal with them. When examining the formulation of monetary policy in situations involving considerable pricemoderating effects, it can also be a good idea to give some reflection to the time perspective of monetary policy. One possibility is that the visible effects ebb away quickly, even though they occur beyond the normal policy horizon. In that case, presumably, one should be careful not to stimulate the economy too much. The opposite would apply if inflation were forced up strongly by some effect which could be expected to dissipate beyond the 2-year horizon. This is obviously a difficult question of judgement. Should a forecast change in prices be considered to be temporary or not?