Bitcoin Forum

Maybe this is nitpicky, but I don't like the term "virtual currency."  It suggests that Bitcoin is not real in some way. WoW gold is more like a virtual currency. A better term is "digital currency," because it is indeed a real money, it just happens to be digital.

I would also argue that Bitcoins are more of a "real currency" than fiat digital dollars flying around from account to account. Both are digital, but one cannot be created at whim. So what's more "virtual," Bitcoins or dollars?

Thus - I'd politely ask all of you to use the term "digital currency" instead of "virtual currency," if you please  :)

In my opinion Bitcoin is not a money.  As a digital good, it is traded/bartered as a medium of exchange for other goods / services / cash(national currencies).  In itself it is not money / currency - as it is not a store of value backed by any issuer of authority.

Disclaimer:  Cloud9's postings are individual opinions.  You should derive your own opinions.

Semantically, I agree with OP - virtual currency does sound like BTC is inherently, i don't know, fake. Cryptocurrency sounds too spooky for the layman.

Digital? Thats a hot little buzzword still, 15 years out.

Now if we could only get  Jonathan Ive to design Brushed chrome and glass BTC USB "wallets", we'd be set forever. 

Agree. It is a digital commodity, like gold, made scarce by cryptography. It's got a lot of attributes which make it useful for exchange: divisibility, anonymity, security, but it should not be considered a currency.

What is money if not a "good, traded/bartered as a medium of exchange for other goods"?  Bitcoin is true money precisely because it is used in this way. And it is indeed a store of value so long as it retains a market price. Similarly, gold is a store of value to the extent that its market price against other goods is maintained. Similarly again, fiat dollars are a store of value only to the extent that their market price in terms of goods is maintained.

The fact that Bitcoin is not "backed by any issuer of authority" doesn't mean it's not a money. Again, gold is not backed by authorities, either, and it is the longest running money in human history. Both gold and Bitcoins are money because the marketplace has chosen them as such. Fiat dollars are money because the government has chosen them as such.

I trust the market more than the government to decide what is real money.

Wouldn't it be best if we called them digital tokens instead of currency to avoid government regulations that are meant for currencies.

I mean I'm sure there are different laws for barter then there are for trading currencies..

Unfortunately that Schrodinger's Cat is very very much out of the bag. Putting a new sematics hat on BTC will not circumvent any government attempt to classify it as currency and destroy it as such.

Now this I'm sympathetic to, so long as we all know the truth  ;D

Great suggestion. One of the many small steps that will help Bitcoin gain credibility.

Maybe this is nitpicky as well, but I don't like the term "backed by any issuer of authority." That means that the issuer of authority is pointing guns at someone and forcing them to accept the currency. Only bad currencies need such backing.