Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin's law: If a discussion grow longer, the probability of an argument on what exactly bitcoin is increases. Is it money, currency, commodity, or something else entirely?


Hat tip(metaphorically) to noagendamarket for suggesting the idea on IRC. I merely formulated the law.

I think it should be reformulated, because in this way there could be exceptions. This is the same like Godwins law, but that one is formulated a bit different (If a discussion grows longer the probability of mentioning Nazi's or Hitler goes towards 1). If it were formulated like you do we would have a forum full of topics ending in discussions about how Nazi's would think about what Bitcoin would be. ;)

Now if we have the same penalty in there as is in Godwins law (e.g. mention the question what bitcoin is and you will loose the discussion and have the topic locked). That would be great. ;)

just insert "virtual" in front of all those words.
/debate

LOL.

I re-edited the formulation. Still awkward.

This reminds me of a reflexion I had once about objectivism.

It started when I was wondering whether there is a real qualitative difference between democracy and dictatorship.  I was also wondering if one can really consider democracy as a "dictatorship of majority towards minority".

Then it appeared to me that all those definitions are purely conventionnal.  It's only in maths that things have clear bondaries that allows us to identify them with no doubt.  In real life, there are, as antic materialist philosophers said once, "only atoms and emptiness".

There is no point arguing endlessly about how to call things.  Things exist beyond the name we give them.  That's how I understand objectivism.

IMHO, it is both currency and commodity, because it behaves like a gold bullion.

Ok but what is gold ?  Is it money, a currency, a commodity or what ?  ;)

Truly gold is a chemical element.  Nothing more.

Well, in the same way, bitcoin is a p2p network that comply to a certain protocol.  If you want to know what is bitcoin, the best way to find out is to read the source code.

PS:  this is "applied objectivism", I guess :)

Nonetheless, humans knew objectively that their belief about money have different effect on the economy.

My table is a piece of wood and a table at the same time. Or more precisely is a piece of wood and is being used as a table at the same time. Nobody sees nothing wrong with this. Things can "be" two (or even more) "things" at the same time.

Similarly, gold is a chemical element and is being widely used as money. As long as it is used as money, it is money. When people stops using gold as money it wont be money. Samething with the inked pieces of paper from the Federal Reserve. They are paper and are being used as money.

Money is a function. And bitcoin is functioning as money.

1. Gold is money, because there is a limited supply of it and everybody wants it for some reason.
2. Gold is also a commodity, because it can be used to produce other things, and can be used as consumer good/product.

So bitcoins are not really a commodity like gold, but have some attributes of it though. For example, they are not completely virtual, as physical computer processing power  is required to produce them. That is an attribute of gold bullion too.

Thus endeth the thread....

So bitcoin's law got invoked in its own thread! Hehehe.

Is your table really a piece of wood ?  I mean, it's made of wood, but there are other stuffs in it :  nails, painting, whatever...  And you're talking about YOUR table, which is a particular table.  Some tables are made with other material than wood.  You can say "my table is a piece of wood", but you can't say "A table is a piece of wood".  This not a definition, not even a characteristic for the general "table" concept.

Definitions are always tricky if one wants to question them thorously.  But the good thing is that they are nothing but conventions.  It is therefore pointless to argue about them.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care much whether gold and bitcoins are money, currency or commodity.  This is all relative.

Of course it was bound to happen!