Bitcoin: according to Google trends, Russia is the most Bit-curious country

UPDATE: Bitcoin up again, now over $150

The number of people typing "Bitcoin" into Google is rising everywhere as the value of the virtual currency increases - but nowhere are searchers more feverish than in Russia. According to Google trends Russians are performing the most searches for "Bitcoin" -  followed by Estonia, and then the US and Finland.

The Telegraph suggests this lends support to the idea that Bitcoin's recent rise was driven by the situation in Cyprus, as government trust plummeted and savers looked for ways to circumvent the banks. Russian businesses were hit particularly hard by the crisis as they accounted for around €19bn of Cypriot deposits.

But Russia was topping Bitcoin Google trends as far back as July 2011, and there might be older reasons for Russian interest. The currency has obvious advantages in BRIC countries - outlined a few of them in this post 9 months ago:

Bitcoin has a bigger potential to improve the lives for those whose savings are at risk of devaluation through inflation, for those whose payments are made costlier as the result of payment system fees, and most importantly for those whose governments impose restrictions on how their money is used.

And once online wagering services like SatoshiDICE had added translations into Russian, the currency faced no barriers to expansion:

Because Bitcoin is not a corporation, nor a bank, nor an agency of any government, nor any formal organization it can thus continue to expand, permeating the BRICs and beyond, organically just as it exists today.  This is an expected and natural progression for this currency.

The currency value continues to soar - on Friday, a single Bitcoin traded at around $135.

UPDATE: now over $150, according to Business Insider

These bears don't know what Bitcoin is. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Theresa May shows again that Brexit means hard Brexit

The Prime Minister's promise of "an end to free movement" is incompatible with single market membership. 

Theresa May, it is commonly said, has told us nothing about Brexit. At today's PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn ran with this line, demanding that May offer "some clarity". In response, as she has before, May stated what has become her defining aim: "an end to free movement". This vow makes a "hard Brexit" (or "chaotic Brexit" as Corbyn called it) all but inevitable. The EU regards the "four freedoms" (goods, capital, services and people) as indivisible and will not grant the UK an exemption. The risk of empowering eurosceptics elsewhere is too great. Only at the cost of leaving the single market will the UK regain control of immigration.

May sought to open up a dividing line by declaring that "the Labour Party wants to continue with free movement" (it has refused to rule out its continuation). "I want to deliver on the will of the British people, he is trying to frustrate the British people," she said. The problem is determining what the people's will is. Though polls show voters want control of free movement, they also show they want to maintain single market membership. It is not only Boris Johnson who is pro-having cake and pro-eating it. 

Corbyn later revealed that he had been "consulting the great philosophers" as to the meaning of Brexit (a possible explanation for the non-mention of Heathrow, Zac Goldsmith's resignation and May's Goldman Sachs speech). "All I can come up with is Baldrick, who says our cunning plan is to have no plan," he quipped. Without missing a beat, May replied: "I'm interested that [he] chose Baldrick, of course the actor playing Baldrick was a member of the Labour Party, as I recall." (Tony Robinson, a Corbyn critic ("crap leader"), later tweeted that he still is one). "We're going to deliver the best possible deal in goods and services and we're going to deliver an end to free movement," May continued. The problem for her is that the latter aim means that the "best possible deal" may be a long way from the best. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.