Bitcoin Forum

First, I dont want this to be true but it is.

Currency is a unit.

It is a unit in the system of measurement of value. Just like an inch is a unit in the system of measurement for length.

Units (and there have been thousands of different ones) all have 2 things in common.

1- They are not real. They are all made up, everyone of them is just an opinion. Inch, pound, meter, cat 5, g force,currency --- not real.
the are all just an opinion that we chose to share. We all share the opinion that an inch is so long, if we all shared the opinion that an inch was a foot then it would be.

2- All units are equal to a constant and are objectively definable.

Bitcoin is not a currency because it is not a unit. It has to be definable it has to be equal to something.  An inch is not real but it is definable.

* note that the USD no longer fits the definition of currency either. It is not a UNIT 



 

Hurr durr semantics



I think Wikipedia defines it a little better than you do, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that crypto-"currencies" have more in common with tech stocks than fiat-currencies or commodities.

So, what constant is a dollar equal to which makes it a unit?

First, I dont want this to be true but it is.

Currency is a unit.

It is a unit in the system of measurement of value. Just like an inch is a unit in the system of measurement for length.

Units (and there have been thousands of different ones) all have 2 things in common.

1- They are not real. They are all made up, everyone of them is just an opinion. Inch, pound, meter, cat 5, g force,currency --- not real.
the are all just an opinion that we chose to share. We all share the opinion that an inch is so long, if we all shared the opinion that an inch was a foot then it would be.

2- All units are equal to a constant.

The US Dollar is not a currency because it is not a unit. It has to be definable it has to be equal to something.  An inch is not real but it is definable. 

Fucking words, how do they work?

Besides that BTC is clearly defined as 100000000 satoshis :P

Take your definitions somewhere else; we're trying to argue a pointless semantic thing here.

No, you can't define units like this. You need to define satoshi first. A meter is not defined as 1000 millimeters. Since 1983, a meter has been defined


Neither bitcoin nor USD are units. And this is bad.

No, it's a good thing, because in that sense a bitcoin is objectively no worse than a dollar.

Objectively no better either.

bitcoin is a currency.

if you do not believe that then please commit a crime and go to prison.. then you will learn the hard way that not only FIAT can be used as currency.

how many cigarettes would you trade to save you anus from being violated. or would you prefer to deny non FIAT items as not being currency.. and take it like a woman...

Except for it's hard supply limit.

bitcoin is a digital Finite resource

No no no. You're missing the point of this pointless sematic argument entirely. A cigarette can be defined as a certain mass of tobacco, therefore cigarettes are currency and FIAT is not.

bitcoin is many things dependant on what way you look at it.
for investors its a finite asset, something they own that has limited supply and potential to make them profit by holding longterm
for traders: its a speculative currency that value changes by how much miners mine and hoard (supply) and how much the community wish to have (demand)
for governments: it is not a FIAT so their tax and minimum wage laws ensure that contracted employee's remain paid in FIAT and pay their taxes in FIAT, thus keeping their FIAT circulation flowing
for entrepreneurs: its a new currency that doesnt require identity to open bank accounts to use it, or business plans to enable processing services to be available to them. it opens up many oppertunities that FIAT does not.

the list goes on but bitcoin is not just one single description that can fit easily into one box. bitcoins use and potential far exceeds that of gold, FIAT or prison cigarettes..

In our current paradigm of mainstream society <-- relative to your lifestyle(s) The dollar purchases oil, from there you can determine the most appropriate price for a banana or a ton of steel. The dollar is a monopoly. But because of the dollar/oil relationship you get relative price stability, something that does not currently exist in bitcoin, but would need to for it be able to determine how much each bitcoin unit is worth. As max kieser said, were trading beaver skins. Bitcoin market cap must grow beyond 100billion to truly define the notion it has reached 'escape velocity.'

Because of our military might, similar to Zimbabwe(military), they were able to print money, sieze land. The US is currently doing the same things, just on a global scale. Yes we are being fleeced by our leaders. But they got us by the balls, and I do not think they feel all that threatend by bitcoin and I am beginning to think, they should not feel threatend  by bitcoin, The elite will always dominate. Granted russia, china might be the ones calling the shots, but they are already harboring the elite just as the US of A is.

For now it is
-a payment system
-Risky speculative investment
-uncensored transactions

as the notion it is a store of value or a currency, I do not think those concepts are 'official' and it will take time to see which way things go.

It has many characteristics of a ponzi scheme, but it also has many characteristic of an honest, legitmate technology.

As for it being adopted by the world and become the world reserve currency by the will of the people, I think that carries a lot of risks. forget the govt, forget hackers, our sun could send us back to the stone age with a solar storm. Paper cash, and gold, would still reign surpreme in those events.

Skills and useful commodities for sure. Whether paper cash is useful at all depends on the disaster.

Why not? Go ahead, take a shovel, throw it on the fan.

Are you serious? lolol.

No, a commodity is a unit.  Currency is current value.

Bitcoin is money. It is not physical but it is still tangible.

The three functions of money is

Facilitate indirect exchange: (Money that has this function is sometimes called currency). Bitcoin has this function, but in no geographic area is bitcoin the main currency for the time being. It is used in non-geographic areas like internet gambling and internet trade.

Saving: Here bitcoin is perfect.

Unit of account: Not usable for now. So what? It will be used for this also later.

Perhaps it would be helpful to think of units of currency as being similar to points in a football game.  The points allow relative value to be assigned to touchdowns, field goals, safeties, etc.  The points don't have to be definable or equal to anything.  One of the purposes of currency (or money) is to be a measure of value and allow the market to assign relative value to goods, services, labor, etc. as well as to other currencies.

I think the volatility will always be part of bitcoin's nature, even when all the coins are mined and one coin worth millions of dollars

But that volatility is a healthy indication of the periodical variations in supply of goods/services and demand for saving. When economy is good, people might spend more and lower the bitcoin's exchange value, and when economy is bad, people might save more and raise bitcoin's exchange value

On the other hand, fiat money always try to maintain a fixed exchange value, which is impossible to achieve without a constant inflation and manually intervention of the money supply, that in turn re-allocate wealth to money creators and the people around them

So the cost of having a constant measurement of value is slavery, you chose

Because no charge back and no bank want to accept it :)

You dont know how happy it makes me to see people getting it.  ;D

I am not saying that it cant be currency but it will have to be defined. Currency is a unit and units are objectively definable. We measure things that dont exist like value and data in terms of things that do! 

A unit of data is equal to a byte a byte is equal to a charged particle.    1 satoshi = 1 byte = 1 charged partical. Now it can work. You cant have measurement without a UNIT.

The world has been living with a system of measurement that doesnt have a unit. This has happened before. An inch used to be measured by human thumbs. That is the state of currency today a unit of measurement that changes properties. The governments of the world have passed out a ruler for measuring value that doesn't have any lines on it.     

That is why digital currency is so important. The problem isnt that they create currency out of thin air. Units are created out of thin air, they are just representations. We dont limit the number of inchs or pounds and we shouldn't limit the amount of currency. What should be done is to keep the unit true and to do that as you point out, it is not the value that changes but the quantity.  

Ben bernakie actually had a good idea.. (this shit is was hard for me to swallow) when he suggested tossing currency from helicopters. The issue with an elastic currency supply is the distribution it is that banks and wall street get the money first. Digital currency can change that. Instead of the value changing it is the quantity that need to change. It could be set up that when demand for bitcoin goes up and more people want to transact in it that the block reward changes and coins are randomly distributed not to miners but to active wallets?

The real reason that this problem wont be fixed is that it will remove the financial gain. This community is built on speculation. If bitcoin were to be defined. No one would be getting rich off of hording it.    

Exactly!

You get it!

Do you not get that you just admitted it is not money. Bitcoin doesn't meet that definition. It is not a unit.  You are saying that it will become a unit, but it is not one now.

Until it is a unit it is not currency.

This is a problem of measurement guys. It requires a unit.   

 ;D ;D ;D   back to the drawing board.

Whatever. I never liked the "currency" word anyway.

It is fine as long as people see it for what it is. You can still transact value with them and they do still have value (as long as we agree they have value). They transact value in the way that trading cards do, not the way currency does.

The point for me is that they cant replace the dollar and it cant take the control of the money supply away from the banks and government special interest groups.

It isnt a threat to the existing power structure.

My motivation is to make the world a more fair place and to help close the gap in income inequality. My goal is for 1 income to be sufficient to raise a family on, like it used to be. We are capable of producing so much more wealth with so much less labor. The work week should me getting shorter one income should be more than enough if it was enough in the past. 1 percent of the population owns 46 percent of the wealth of the world something is not right about that and this is the mechanism that creates that scenario.   


I dont think that most of the people involved in this tech realize the radical transformation it is capable of bringing about. I want to see that transformation in my life time.

So stop dicking around with digital collectibles and someone make digital currency!   

My suggestion for units--
1 satoshi  = 1 joule of work
1 satoshi = 1 kilowatt
1  satoshi = 1 byte.   

So currency is money.

Very good now we have to define money.   

Money = The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value

So money is a unit. Now we need to define unit.

u·nit
ˈyo͞onit/Submit
noun
1.
an individual thing or person regarded as single and complete but which can also form an individual component of a larger or more complex whole.
"the family unit"
synonyms:   component, element, building block, constituent; More
a device that has a specified function, esp. one forming part of a complex mechanism.
"the gearbox and transmission unit"
a piece of furniture or equipment for fitting with others like it or made of complementary parts.
"a sink unit"
a self-contained section of accommodations in a larger building or group of buildings.
"one- and two-bedroom units"
a part of an institution such as a hospital having a special function.
"the intensive care unit"
a subdivision of a larger military grouping.
"he returned to Germany with his unit"
synonyms:   detachment, contingent, division, company, squadron, corps, regiment, brigade, platoon, battalion; More
an amount of educational instruction, typically determined by the number of hours spent in class.
"students take three compulsory core units"
an item manufactured.
"unit cost"
a police car.
"he eased into his unit and flicked the siren on"
2.
a quantity chosen as a standard in terms of which other quantities may be expressed.
"a unit of measurement"
synonyms:   quantity, measure, denomination More
3.
the number one.
the digit before the decimal point in decimal notation, representing an integer less than ten.
Origin

More
late 16th cent. (as a mathematical term): from Latin unus, probably suggested by digit.
Translate unit to
Use over time for: unit

How about moving the argument to the realm of function? Currency is to function as a medium of exchange, which I would say that Bitcoin qualifies as. However, it doesn't behave the same way as fiat currency because it is almost always tied to its exchange rate, vis a vis the US Dollar.

I know this won't fit the narrow semantics that some of you are using, but I enjoy what Elon Musk said about bitcoin, calling it an "API for micropayments."

See more: http://bitcoinbabble.com/?p=103 (http://bitcoinbabble.com/?p=103)

lol. that's how i felt. :)

bitcoin is in circulation. ergo it's a currency.

Lol what a fucking pointless argument

Hello!

I think you might find it interesting to look into the history of measurements. We have had all kinds of units over the millennia, and our system of units is constantly evolving. Even the SI units which are now used as the common standard in scientific measurements are subject to change.

So you may find that some of the things we currently rely on as 'units' don't actually fit your definition of 'unit'.

Value is probably one of the more complicated things to assign a fixed unit to, because it is so subjective. But I think you're wrong about Bitcoin not being a unit. We have a fixed supply of 21 million Bitcoins. 1 Bitcoin remains constant (i.e. 1 BTC will always = 1 BTC) - its up to us to decide how much we value it.

Even if true it wouldn't be any different from fluctuating fiat currencies. They will all go digital as seen in Canada with MintChip. Even a currency backed by gold that has a supposed "intrinsic value" still doesn't have a fixed value. If the number of gold discoveries go down or new uses for gold are found the value of the currency will change. Furthermore currency is intended as a medium of exchange, and Bitcoin fulfills this purpose.




 

It is fixed a unit.  Gold is always gold. It is human perspective that changes.

But yes you are right, the value changes with human perspective. Price is the representation of the change in perspective. It is like this.

Imagine that we measure the weight of a bowling ball here or earth and it weighs 10 pounds. Then we measure the same bowling ball on the surface of the moon and it now weighs 2 pounds. The value changes but the unit stays the same. A pound is a pound. It is human perspective that changes.

The representation of the change in human perspective is price.

The unit is the constant. The value is what changes with perspective (i.e  a unit of gold might be worth a 100 gallons of water next to a lake, but only worth 1 gallon of water in the desert)... Do you see how the number changes with human perspective but the unit stays the same?



I never said it wasnt a medium of exchange.. it is. So is a baseball card.

 

+1 for the soundest reasoning to date on this thread. Have a cookie!

I see your point, but what advantage is there in backing a currency with a measurable unit? In the case of gold, if you back a currency with it then you are now creating an additional use for gold and artificially increasing its worth. This is true for any precious metal. In the USA close to 50% of all silver purchased per year is in the form of coins, now anything that uses silver(Such as electronics) suffers in cost because the demand is higher. Furthermore, as you pointed out even gold suffers from value change due to perception.

You have highlighted an underlying problem with Bitcoin and currencies in general though. It is difficult to price something in Bitcoin because the value changes so rapidly. To me this means that you cannot effectively price goods/services using currency units. I've thought about having a separate unit for measuring value that can be used as a mechanism for pricing, and the only thing that changes is the ratio between this hypothetical value unit and a currency. Even if Bitcoins value stabilizes, we will hopefully move towards competing currencies and this means we need a standard pricing mechanism as an intermediary. I doubt I will have all the answers for this problem though, but I expect something similar will be required eventually.

It isnt yet, wait until simbabwe use them as a currency after the prime minister understand what that is.

Hopefully, Bitcoin will become that standard pricing mechanism.  Instead of pricing bitcoins in dollars, we'll be pricing dollars and all of the other fiat and crypto currencies in bitcoins.  The value of a bitcoin, when measured with dollars, isn't going to stabilize because the dollar will not stop losing value until it no longer exists and has the same value as the other fiat currencies that have failed throughout history.

Thanks! (eats cookie, nom nom nom...)

I think the best responses in this thread were:


and:

Do you see your equation?

1 bitcoin = 1 bitcoin  is like saying this

1 inch = 1 inch
1 pound = 1 pound
1 byte = 1 byte.

That is not how units work! They are all equal to something that is objectively real.

If that is sound reasoning I must be fucked in the head.  

I'm currently in my third year of a Chemistry-Physics degree, so I'm actually quite familiar with units. Don't worry, you're not fucked in the head, your reasoning is just slightly off.

Let me give you an example of a time when we made a change to our definition of a very common unit:

The metre, a well know unit of measurement, was once defined by a standard platinum bar. The bar was created to act as the universally agreed upon definition of 1 metre, and was therefore by definition exactly one metre long. This was consistent to within a certain degree, but of course changes in e.g. temperature/pressure could in fact cause the length to vary slightly. Parameters were introduced to improve the consistency (specific temperature and pressure at which the length of the bar would considered to be exactly one metre) but unfortunately, using a physical object to act as a benchmark can never be as accurate as the scientific community would like.

It was therefore decided that we should redefine the metre, without using a physical object. Einstein had shown, in his theory of relativity, that the speed of light is in fact a universal constant when measured within the same medium. It therefore made sense to redefine the metre in terms of this unchanging physical constant. Our definition of the metre is now 'The length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second'

Your idea that units must be 'equal to something that is 'objectively real', while it may seem somewhat intuitive, is actually a slight misunderstanding. The fact that it is so difficult to find consistency in objective reality is what makes the task of measuring things so tricky.

Back to Bitcoin:

Bitcoin is actually a great starting point if we want to define a system of measurement for value. What we are effectively doing is defining a standard unit of value, i.e. 1 bitcoin, which can act as a universal constant similar to the speed of light in the example above. Now we have our benchmark (which doesn't fluctuate due to changes in temperature/pressure etc.), and we can start to decide how to value everything else in comparison to it. (notice that making measurements always boils down to making comparisons between things)

Of course, being so new, and being introduced to a society who are so used to valuing things in a different way (namely whichever fiat currency they grew up with), make things more complicated (as well as a million other things, economics can't really be compared with science due to the numerous factors to consider, but we're talking about units here). We are still in price discovery phase with people having to shift their perspectives and adjust. It is yet to be seen whether or not the population as a whole will accept this new measurement system.

The problem of making measurements and defining units is and always had been at the heart of the scientific discipline. Its an interesting subject, and there's a great deal of understanding to be gained by studying it in a bit more depth.

This.  Bitcoin is a proposal for a unit that anyone can use.  If it is adopted as a transactional currency, it will become a unit by which things are measured.

Ideally at a rate of 1 Bitcoin = 1 McMansion

I don't see OP as a good basis for this, but I also don't view bitcoin as a currency as it is not really used as a medium of exchange. Dollars are generally used as the medium of exchange for bitcoin. This is similar to gold -- also not a currency. Especially with SR gone... Bitpay is most of the economy, and Bitpay bases everything on dollars.

Need more patience.

 

Notice in the above example the unit remained something objectively real. Because you cant measure an opinion with an opinion.  

But....


BITCOIN! BTC

How is one unit of account in the Bitcoin blockchain ledger--a value measurable and calculable, mind you--any less objectively real than "the distance light travels in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second in a vacuum?"

Because whether a human perceives it or not a ray of light travels that distance through a vacuum. The blockchain doesn't really exist without human perception it is not objectively real it doesnt exist without us, it is a concept of man. 

You might also be interested in learning a bit about quantum physics.

(you may find 'objective reality' to be slightly more fickle than you assume)

Sure the blockchain exists.

Those markings in the Bitcoin ledger exist, just as much as ink markings made on a piece of paper. It's as real as a skyscraper, a bestselling novel or a computer virus. If every human on earth suddenly dropped dead, not only would the blockchain still exist, it would even continue to be updated for quite some time (until the power grid failed, anyway.)

Just because it's man-made doesn't mean it's "not objectively real."

Now define "second" without mentioning distance or mass.  :)

All is relative.

A Bitcoin is 1/21,000,000 of the bitcoin protocol.  ::)

The OP makes the mistake of assuming that, since currencies have historically been backed by physical objects, and since they have usually been defined in terms of some constant measure of these objects, that "currency" inherently means "unit".

That's not even remotely the case.

Currency means "current value".  Currencies have current value, not because they are backed by some unit of objective backing, but because they circulate (like a current!) as a medium of exchange.

And this is simple to prove.  Look at any unbacked fiat currency in existence today.  Is it defined by an objective "unit"?  No, of course not.  A Federal Reserve note "dollar" is not an ounce of silver.  It's not 1/35th an ounce of gold.  It's not backed by anything whatsoever.  Yet it still has currency because it circulates as a medium of exchange!

So, yeah, in terms of some poorly-worded regulations aimed at preventing the fraudulent issuance of money without the advertised backing, Bitcoin is not a "currency".  Bitcoin is clearly not backed by anything.  And no one has ever claimed otherwise.

But, in terms of the actual definition of currency, namely current value based on circulation as a medium of exchange, Bitcoin clearly is a currency.

Either currency is a system of measurement or it is not. All systems of measurements require a unit of measurement. It is a problem that the dollar is not a true unit and is not an accurate measure of value. It is to the citizens and foreign debt holders disadvantage that the measurement of value is done with a yard stick that changes length.
We have been living 4 decades with a lie, It wont last much longer.   

And that's why we have Bitcoin.  A Bitcoin is a unit of measurement.  It represents approximately 1/21,000,000th of the Bitcoin economy.  It is arguably the best economic measurement ever devised.  That doesn't mean it's perfect.  The Bitcoin economy isn't exactly easy to define.  We could imagine ways to come up with a better unit.  We know what it would generally look like.  But it's beyond our capabilities at the moment.  And in fifty years the difference between Bitcoin and a perfect unit of economic measurement would likely be minimal anyways.

Regardless, if you're going to make this huge semantic argument, it would help to start out using the correct definitions of words to begin with.  Currency is not synonymous with money.  Saying that someone needs to make a currency representing to a Joule or whatever is simply ridiculous nonsense.  Here's one (http://www.alkalinebatteries.us/images/AA_Coppertop2.jpg).  Try using it as currency.  Don't like it?  What do you think would work better?  Is the petrodollar really such a distant memory?  How well did that turn out?

Now, if you want to argue that Bitcoin isn't *money*, or that Bitcoin is a poor investment, because it doesn't have guaranteed future value, fine.  Many here would even agree with that.  I'm sure it would be an interesting conversation.  But arguing that Bitcoin isn't "currency" because it isn't a "system of measurement," when no system of measurement coming anywhere *close* to Bitcoin has ever even been espoused, let alone devised, and when that isn't even the definition of "currency" anyways, is just confusion.

Quote from: Holliday on October 25, 2013, 02:29:49 PM
cur·ren·cy

noun \ˈkər-ən(t)-sē, ˈkə-rən(t)-\

: the money that a country uses : a specific kind of money

: something that is used as money

: the quality or state of being used or accepted by many people

plural cur·ren·cies

Full Definition of CURRENCY

1
  a :  circulation as a medium of exchange
  b :  general use, acceptance, or prevalence <a story gaining currency>
  c :  the quality or state of being current :  currentness
2
  a :  something (as coins, treasury notes, and banknotes) that is in circulation as a medium of exchange
  b :  paper money in circulation
  c :  a common article for bartering
  d :  a medium of verbal or intellectual expression

So currency is money.

Very good now we have to define money.   

Money = The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value

So money is a unit. Now we need to define unit.

u·nit
ˈyo͞onit/Submit
noun
1.
an individual thing or person regarded as single and complete but which can also form an individual component of a larger or more complex whole.
"the family unit"
synonyms:   component, element, building block, constituent; More
a device that has a specified function, esp. one forming part of a complex mechanism.
"the gearbox and transmission unit"
a piece of furniture or equipment for fitting with others like it or made of complementary parts.
"a sink unit"
a self-contained section of accommodations in a larger building or group of buildings.
"one- and two-bedroom units"
a part of an institution such as a hospital having a special function.
"the intensive care unit"
a subdivision of a larger military grouping.
"he returned to Germany with his unit"
synonyms:   detachment, contingent, division, company, squadron, corps, regiment, brigade, platoon, battalion; More
an amount of educational instruction, typically determined by the number of hours spent in class.
"students take three compulsory core units"
an item manufactured.
"unit cost"
a police car.
"he eased into his unit and flicked the siren on"
2.
a quantity chosen as a standard in terms of which other quantities may be expressed.
"a unit of measurement"
synonyms:   quantity, measure, denomination More
3.
the number one.
the digit before the decimal point in decimal notation, representing an integer less than ten.
Origin

More
late 16th cent. (as a mathematical term): from Latin unus, probably suggested by digit.
Translate unit to
Use over time for: unit

Hi, did you call into free talk live maybe last week?

Most people have already accepted it's a commodity

This is provablely false.  Most units of measurement are, in fact, arbitrarily chosen standards of agreement.  Currencies are, truthfully, a unit of measurement; but only of value.  Value is, itself, highly subjective.  No currency has a constant value relative to anything other than itself, and often not even to itself over time.  Yes, Bitcoin is both a currency and a commodity, in many respects; it's also a service, and that service also contributes value to the users.

Because the country can't print Bitcoin easily. So it isn't a currency, its just an exchange like gold...

Bitcoin isn't a currency. yet.

Yes that was me!

FTFU

Value is a subjective term it is time, space, and need dependent. No 2 being value everything equality.
wealth (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wealth) on the other hand is a shared opinion of what we value.

Bitcoin is equal to a constant as it, for arguments sake has a finite number.
It is the most practical unit of measure ever to exist that supports the meme of money.

While the value of a glass of water depends on whether you are drowning in it or dying from lack of it.
Wealth as an opinion that we chose to share is relatively constant,  Bitcoin is the most appropriate unit of measure (currency) to have ever existed that can be used to measure wealth.

Value on the other hand remains a subjective process by which individuals make decisions and does not need a unit of measure. (Many may actually use the collective shared opinion of value ie. wealth to help them make subjective decisions involving value judgments - it's called following the judgment of the herd) the underlying collective opinion of what we all value (wealth) is not affected (food, safety, comfort, free will, - Maslow's hierarchy of needs ).

Cool! I'm a big fan of the show and really like to hear people call in with opinions which are not in alignment with the hosts.

This.  ^^^

It seems the OP has common misconception that value is objective, intrinsic to the thing being valued and fixed on an absolute, rather than a relative scale. A unit of measure is only ever an approximation of relative measurement, and not a perfect quantity of fixed objective existence.

Much can be gained from realizing that value is subjective and relative. OP also needs to consider that there is no logical inconsistency in the concept of 'relative value'. Just because it cant be resolved to an objective and fixed unit of measure, does not mean it cant be a unit of measure. Value is assigned by cognative projection in the first instance, and then by social consensus as the process of invoking the value vested in any common medium, that might be called currency.

Currency btw, is also a relative term. Something gains 'currency' as it gains acceptance as medium of exchange. It is essential fwiw, that an honest currency must allow the value to fluctuate as demand and supply dictate. The requirement to do otherwise, is not sound economics, but rather corruption.

BTC is a commodity. Get your Econ right noob.

To the value is subjective so it is okay that the unit of value is subjective crowd.


Value is subjective to the individual but objective to mankind.. I can say I dont value water because I am not thirsty, I can never say that mankind doesnt value water.

Further the measure of the subjective nature of value is called price!!!!

This happens in other systems of measurement too.

Imagine you weight a bowling ball on earth and it weighs 10 pounds then you weigh the same ball on the moon and it is 2 pounds. The pound didnt change, human perception changed. We could say that the ball weighed 10 earth pounds or 10 moon pounds but we dont. We represent the change in perception with a qualifier. The ball weighs 10 pounds on earth, earth being the qualifier or the ball weighs 2 pounds on the moon, the moon is the qualifier.

We could do the same thing with currency we could say water is worth 10 units of desert currency or it is worth 1 unit of beach currency, but we dont.

We use price as the qualifier to represent the change in human perspective!

People say that gold and silver are not a constant because their value measured against other items changes. It is not the UNIT that changes it is human perspective.

   

Lol the original poster was probly a high english teacher

And price is measured by currency.  And Bitcoin is currency.  So what's the problem?

You can't have an objective measure of value that is disconnected from price.  It's just not possible.  Gold is a joke.  Fiat currencies are inherently flawed.  The "accounting" profession is a total fraud.  What else is there?  Nothing.  That's why we have Bitcoin.

Like I said, in fifty years, price and value will likely converge in Bitcoin anyways.  If you can come up with an "objective" measure of value between now and then, more power to you.  Odds are you won't.  It's a hard problem (http://www.realestatebloglab.com/images/google-all-seeing-eye.jpg).  So just accept that Bitcoin is a currency in the short term, and (hopefully) an objective measure of value in the long term.

You will never get me to believe that you can have a system of measurement without a UNIT of measurement. You can believe a lie if you like. The whole world has been believing a lie for the last 40+ years, but that is coming to an end. Reality is the ultimate regulator. People can go a long time ignoring reality like when we believed the world was flat, but reality always wins out in the end.

Bitcoin IS the unit of measurement.  It seems so unmoored only beause it's trying to measure something that is subjective, the value of products and services.  The measurement system still requires the pricing mechanisim that a live trade market provides, and even that is only valid momentarily.

Have you ever, by chance, studied the way the actual (SI) units of measurement are defined?  The second and the kilogram, which are both arbitrarily defined*, are used to derive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units) 6 out of the 7 standard units.  Only one other unit (the Kelvin) is not defined in terms of these two.  That's a good thing.  It means that, even though the base units are arbitrary, all of the measures are consistent with each other.

We have this system of measurement, now, only because of hundreds of years of study during which scientists catalogued and refined the fundamental laws of nature that govern the interrelationships between different physical phenomena.  The only reason we haven't unified the second and kilogram, for instance, is because no one has yet to unify gravity and relativity.  Many physical units are named after those who discovered these fundamental laws, such as the Newton (which defines force in terms of mass, distance and time) or the Ampere (which defines current in terms of mass, distance, and time).  Yet, still, the base units from which the others are derived, are arbitrary.

So, since you are fundamentally opposed to a similar kind of arbitrary definition of economic "units", have you done the same for, say, gold?  Do you know the physical law that determines the economic conversion between gold and steel, for instance?  (This would have been nice for Greenspan to have known.)  You haven't found it?  Better get to work, then.  Once you discover this fundamental objective ratio of value, I'm sure it will be named after you, and then you can feel free to lecture us on the fundamental superiority of objective units of measure.  Until then, take a look at this arbitrarily-defined kilogram, and perhaps try to gain a little perspective.

http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/img/mass/prototype.jpg

*And here's the definition of the second.  Does it sound anything like the definition of a Bitcoin to you?  (It should.)


If that seems a little too precise, go back and look at a previous definition:

All units are arbitrarily defined. They are all just a matter of shared opinion.  It is not a problem that bitcoin is arbitrarily defined the problem is that the definition isn't held constant. The definition is in flux like when an foot was measured with human feet. 

No it isn't. The reason it is so unmoored is because it is not a unit. Units are a constant that are definable. It is unstable in the same way that measurement of length was before an inch was defined.

Price is the representation of the change in subjective value, the currency is supposed to be the constant that it measured against.
   

So under your definition pretty much every major economy is operating on something that is not a currency. The US dollar doesn't fit your definition. It is a completely silly argument.
'Unit' defined for currencies IS an abstract. You're conflating the constant of the abstract unit with a constant of physical unit. 1 Dollar is 100 cents. Dollar is the unit, cents are fractions of that unit. 1 Bitcoin, it is a unit that can fractionally be used down to .00000001. It is defined.
The value of the unit is not constant under ANY currency system.
In fact, I would argue that bitcoin fits the definition of currency better than the US dollar because it has greater definition. The monetary base in the US is indeterminate in the future, yet the path of bitcoins being introduced to the economy is definite.

I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but I thought I'd say something just in case someone was taking you seriously.

also conflating units of physical measurement with currency, units as placeholders for valuation as a medium of exchange, is completely irrational. The comparison just doesn't work.
you can say a gram is a certain number of atoms. That is objectively true. There is no such thing as objective value, so you can't measure a constantly defined unit of value. You're just confused.

No I am not trolling.

It isnt my definition it is the definition.

No "currency" that is currently used is actually currency. The US dollar is a unit in the same way that the human foot was a unit when we measured length with body parts. That is to say that it is a puesdo- unit. That is the problem at the heart of the global monetary system in it's current state. It is a system of measurement without a unit of measurement.


for the last 40 years it has been. The world has been living a lie.

. The UNIT is always the same it is human perception that changes. Price is the representation of the subjective nature of value. Currency is supposed to be the constant that it is measured against.

The same is true of data. It is not objectively real. We measure opinions against facts. Data is equal to a byte a byte is equal to charged particle.

If bitcoin were equal to a byte it could work. But the limit would have to be removed to keep the definition true. 

The economy isn't constant.  It can grow or shrink.

Frankly, it's clear that you are a gold bug.  So I'm interested to know your opinion on this statement, true or false:  "Wealth is never destroyed." ?

I am not a gold bug, Gold is a poor unit. Defining a UNIT of value in terms of gold is like defining an inch in terms of an inch worm. There are not enough inch worms to measure all the length just like there is not enough gold to measure all the value.

It is hard to answer true of false to the above statement. You would have to define wealth. 

My recommendations for a UNIT of value would be

A byte
A joule
A kilowatt

   

So, we've determined that your ideal currencies are this:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81qNktsJcbL._SL1500_.jpg
and this:
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130723220054/pikmin/images/c/c1/AA.jpg

I guess there's nothing left to do, then, but to buy a handful of each and begin your quest to educate the uninformed masses on the benefits of objectively-defined, constant, energy and byte-based currencies.  Good luck.

A byte can't be equal to a charged particle. A byte is eight bits. Sure, a byte can be represented by charged particles, but it is, in practice, just a number no more or less real than any representation of any number. Therefore, a bitcoin, being simply an arbitrary representation of a lot of numbers, should be just fine with you. QED.

One bitcoin is the monetary unit of the bitcoin system. The value of it is dependent of opinions of all the users, and hence is fluctuating.

You are confusing it with the unit of account. This is one of the functions of money. Why count your money? A merchant needs that to compare prices and to know whether his last actions where profitable. If he does not have a unit of account, he can not decide what is the best action in the future, buy a new batch of wares to sell? If it was profitable last time yes, or maybe buy twice as much.

The unit of account should be as stable as possible. He should use a type of money that is stable. If the question is day to day trading, fiat is good for that. If you want to calculate your options, for instance sell a house after 20 years of ownership, dollar is not good enough. If you calculate in BTC, a profit of 1 BTC for a year says nothing, it depends heavily on what time of the year that BTC was earned. Was it january this year, or september this year? Huge difference. The best unit of account currently is probably a inflation adjusted dollar, and for the future, a dollar adjusted for inflation expection. Just know what inflation indicator you use.

The point with the unit of account function, is that the merchant and customers decide for themselves what unit to use. It is not necessary to use the unit of the currency he uses for payments. In fact, for international trade, you have to choose one of several used for payments. No need to use BTC as a unit of account, maybe after bitcoin is fully implemented in the world economy.

It is in practice 8 bits or 8 charged particles ( which is objectively real and a constant) 

The ability to be used as a unit of account is what separates currency from collectibles.

Baseball cards are a store of value and a medium of exchange. So are all collectibles

Bitcoin is a collectible. Not a currency. 

If you say that you are not trolling, then please explain what are you doing?

Or rather what are you trying to do?

What's the point of this thread? Trying to educate us?

I want someone to create a coin that is defined or to get the ripple developers to define ripple. I want a digital currency that can actually work and is capable of replacing the dollar 

Don't tell us, show us.  Do it, if it can be done.  If you can, I'll sing your praises and so will the rest of humanity.  We'll name the currency unit after you.

But please, don't try to convince us that it should be done, when we really don't know how it could (safely|effectively) be done; particularly if you don't know either.

Fair enough, It is beyond my abilities. If you see a coin that fits that profile let me know. I want to support it.

I assume that if such a thing were to ever be developed, neither you nor I will fail to notice as it takes over the world.

Until then we'll stick with Bitcoin is the best option for a currency

Seems like it wouldnt be that big of a deal.

On the homepage of Ripple post 1 ripple ='s 1 KWH

Remove the limit and tie currency creation to its velocity. As more people decide to transact in it do what helicopter ben suggested and randomly distribute the new currency into clients.

That is how the central bank stabilize currency they create more of it as more people decide to transact in it.

Presuming you mean the US Dollar   371 4/16th grains (24.057 grams) of Silver when it was established.  This was done by taking a bunch of the silver coins then in circulation, measuring them and averaging.
............

All this aside, bitcoin is a unit of account, in the same way that all other currencies are a unit of account.

Just because it's value and purchasing power change does not make this untrue.  Time, date, payment, all are recorded in the block chain so it makes for a better unit of account than any other currency commonly traded.

No it isn't... UNITs are definable in objective terms and are a constant. It is puedo-unit, just like the dollar. "Currency" after 1971 became no different than collectibles. After 1971 we started measuring an opinion with an opinion.

We have been trading the equivalent of baseball cards or paintings.

 

I was expecting something thought provoking and instead I find Joey from Friends trying to be an economist.  Or perhaps more like M. Le Blanc who pretends to be stupid for the character he plays.  I'm not sure which.

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

^  ::) idiot.

Here it is from the horses mouth. This is from the owner of BTC china.

China has been known as a nation of savers, who are always saving for a rainy day,” says Lee.  ”Bitcoin is a digital asset, like real estate, gold, or stock. It is just one more option now. With Bitcoin hard-coded to be limited, it’s like a collectible.”

It isnt currency.

Ya douche the dollar hasnt been currency for 40+ years.

I'll just point out that, in your hilariously ill-conceived joke of a system here, one would be able to create "energy credits" by trading ripples back and forth between yourself.  Do you really not recognize this as a fundamental flaw of your insistence on tying a (subjective) currency with (objective) physical goods?

PRICE IT THE REPRESENTATION OF THE SUBJECTIVE NATURE OF VALUE!!!

There would be no reason to for someone to trade back and forth between themselves as they would not receive any of the RANDOMLY distributed new units.

The knife would cut both ways.

It would not only create new units when demand was high it would also destroy old units as demand fell.  

Are there any units to measure subjective phenomena other than an arbitrary relation to collective consensus?

If we attempt to measure collective consensus, we need to have a measurement that is fixed and not dependant on SUBJECTIVE NATUREOF VALUE

No all units are a shared opinion.

I am not sure what you are trying to say in the second line?

Currency has been an objective UNIT most of human history.

This is the way that the dollar works right now. The real problem is that the new units are given to banks and wall street. Ben had a good idea when he suggested dropping currency from a helicopter.

I'm sorry, but, once again, this is simply wrong.  I would get out my hundred-year-old Black's Law Dictionary and quote from the definition of "currency" and the half-dozen cases that explain in detail why currency, not only the concept but the actual etymology of the word itself, is subjectively determined by market acceptance, but I've posted it here before and I'm not sure that would convince you, regardless.  Just search my posts in the legal section if you're interested.  Or we could go through the hundreds of years of human history during which currency was not constant, and catalogue the millions of people who lived and died their entire lives using currency that was not an objective unit of value.  Or we can point to any of the dozens of fiat currencies in existence today whose values change continuously, yet which billions of people use as currencies regardless.  But we've already done that, I think, and it didn't convince you either.  So, frankly I can't say there's much left to point out.  Your ridiculous view of currency as a defined "unit" requires someone to back that definition against the collective force of billions of market participants, which is objectively impossible.  Stick with Federal Reserve Notes if you think otherwise.  That sounds like the closest thing to what you seem to want anyways.  Good luck.

If you have a different definition of currency I would love to see it. 

links?

I hope I'm improving this incredibly important thread with this observation.

Bitcoin is NOT my dick.

My dick is incredibly important.  It accomplishes a lot of things and inseminates a lot of bitches.

Bitcoin does NONE of these things.

We should, therefore, get rid of Bitcoin and replace it with my dick.

Discussion ensues.

You keep wanting to claim that currency is a unit.  That's etymologically incorrect.  Commodity is the unit, because a commodity is a bunch of items that are all functionally equivalent.  They can be used as units because they have common value.  Currency is that which circulates as a medium of exchange, like a current.

It could just go mainstream who knows?



Let's end this discussion and stop the debates shall we? There's been a explanation (a few) to provide you with enough information that Bitcoin is not a currency.

The Merchant's Magazine and Commercial Review, 1864:


http://books.google.com/books?id=8IsoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA394

There, yet another source showing that currency is not a "standard unit," but in fact the complete opposite, the avoidance of an "expensive standard."

Bitcoin is a damn-near perfect example, avoiding the cost of economic calculation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem) via complete disconnect from any objective standard of value.

I dont claim that. I didnt define money. I didnt pull the shit out of my ass. Money is a UNIT of account. You act like I am the only person on the plant that says money is a UNIT!

The coin is the UNIT.

It doesnt say avoidance it say substitution

Now you're just trolling.

What I am saying is I didnt define currency.

A unit of measurement is a definite magnitude of a physical quantity.

A bitcoin is a unit for an amount of bitcoins.   It sounds like a tautology, but it's not.   A satoshi (10e-8 bitcoins) is an other unit for the amount of bitcoins.    Had satoshi called his system "bitgold", he could have called the standard unit a "bitgram" for instance.  Things would maybe have been clearer.   He did not, so that might confuse some.  The thing is that there is no other word to call the "electronic substance" that can be transferred with the bitcoin software.


Whether bitcoins as a whole can be used as a measurement for value (in the sense "commercial value") is a very different matter.  Whether it is true or not does not change the fact that bitcoin is indeed a unit.

That was a quote from Wikipedia.   Obviously for some things the world "physical" has to be taken metaphorically.   Also, I'm not sure "physical" means "material".   Time is a physical concept so I would not be surprised if it could be considered as a physical quantity, thus making the second a physical unit (few people would doubt that, anyway).


As I wrote, things would have been clearer if Satoshi had used a different word to call the "substance" and the "unit"  (as I imagined, with "bitgold" and "bitgram" for instance).  He did not, so "bitcoin" has several meanings.   It's a bit as if we were using the word "water" both for the liquid substance and for a standard amount of it.

Of time.   Jeez.


For Pete's sake, it's not because something is not defined with absolute extreme precision that it does not exist.  A day is the time Earth takes to turn around itself.  It minutely slows through time, but for all intends and purposes, it is constant enough.  A little bit of pragmatism, please.


I don't know where you're going.   If think there is nothing wrong with bitcoin being a unit.  It's a bit polysemic, but that's fine.

I don't need Wikipedia to know what a day is, thanks.  But it's useful to show it to you since apparently you failed elementary school.

Both are days.  You did ask what a day is, without more details.  The general answer is that a day is the time Earth takes to turn around itself.  In a solar day, the Sun is used as a spatial reference.  In a sidereal day, distant stars.  In anyway, both concepts fit the definition of "the time Earth takes to turn around itself", that's why we use the same word to name them, and distinct them only with an adjective (solar or sidereal).

And no, I don't need Wikipedia to know that.  I've learnt that at elementary school and you probably did too if you paid any attention.   This is fucking basic common knowledge.

Troy Ounce, Avoirdupois Ounce

I'd say that's rather the definition of an hour (the historical definition anyway, since the second and thus the hour is no more defined with any astronomical concept, nowadays), being 1/24 of a solar day.    And yes, a day is the time Earth takes to turn around itself.  A solar day is still a day, it's just that the rotation of Earth in this case is relative to the Sun, not distant stars.

And it is a unit of time.   Not the most accurate one, sure, but it is still a unit of time.

I wrote it was the historical definition.  I'm not interested in discussing the oddities of the calendar and time definitions, due to the mismatch between the current, physical definition of the second and the astronomic dynamics of the Earth around the sun.

What is the point your trying to make, exactly?   That neither a second, a minute, a day or a year are units of time??   Yes they are.   It's not because their definition is complicated that they are not units.   The devil is in the details, but fortunately we can ignore the details most of the time.

The way that the Bitcoin network organizes data into a structure using the laws of mathematics to designate value is no different in principle than the way that the physical laws of nature organize matter into a crystalline structure that is gold.

If the internet or Bitcoin network stopped operating Bitcoin would disappear the same way that the expanding red giant sun will destroy all gold on earth in less than 5 billion years. The underlying structural organization would fall into entropy because the underlying order producing that structure break down and get superseded.

Unlike other units of measure, money does not measure the physical properties it has in common with other objects, like a standard weight or length would do. Instead, it measures exchange value - which is never a physical property.

Regarding this, bitcoin is just like any other form of money.

Let's get back on topic, please.

Now, with precision, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Please read this conversation.


https://www.facebook.com/mark.thornton.3760/posts/10153448347155650?comment_id=45550099&offset=0&total_comments=32&notif_t=feed_comment_reply

I am chris my wife is Amber, you are the one who is mistaken.

Please comment on the post if you see an error.

I'm having difficulty following that conversation and get lost on almost every statement.  Maybe you could help?  Here is a small example:

"ChrisandAmber North "because prices adjust not only to the quantity of goods but the quantity of money." That is not honest money! It is not the value of the currency that should change with demand but the quantity. That system enriches people by simply holding currency. That is immoral. You should not get increased value for doing nothing. That is the way bitcoin and currency speculation works now."

Questions:  
1) What is the immoral act of simply holding currency?  
It is very clearly ethical to act or not to act based on one's own agreements and decisions.  This holding currency though also seems morally neutral.  If one benefits from saving due to the immoral spending behavior of others, it would even seem to be on the side of "moral".  What is the immorality here?

2) Prices adjust to both the quantity of goods as well as the quantity of money.  This is market dynamics at work.  In what way does this invalidate the honesty of a money?  This would be true of any form of money, even gold.

3) "It is not the value of the currency that should change with demand but the quantity" (demand of what? quantity of what?)

This gets further muddied with the assumption that governments are those with the role of defining money (something they are uniformly poor at doing though out history).

Your proposal seems to re-create the problems of Bretton-Woods.  The problems predate this period, but were strongly exemplified by the accord.
Centralizing this decision is a part of the problem and destroys the value of the many decision makers of the world and replaces it with a central decider.  
The fundamental problem is that when you have a government fixing prices of anything (especially gold or money) the first thing one will buy is the government.  The greatest misfortune there being that the currency of government is so often violence, as these have the monopoly of that within their geographies.
Consider that each holder of the world reserve currency through history has been the supreme military power of its age and you may take the meaning from that.  Supporting that military is typically the downfall of the economic system.

Bitcoin offers a peaceful way out of that burden for the USA in this age of our own time.  This gives the people of the USA the strongest interest in seeing that happen as it is they that bear this expense, as well as the repercussions of it being exercised globally.

Simply holding a piece of paper should not enrich you. That is fucked. You didnt do a thing. You didnt innovate you didnt improve you didnt do shit, but sit on your ass and you think you should be rewarded for that?

Look at the way bitcoin is working. Hold and be enriched!   More people want to use the "currency" and the value changes, so for doing nothing you get more purchasing power or if less people want to use the "currency" you lose purchasing power. That is not moral.

It isnt the unit that should change it is the amount of them.

If there where only 10 inches in existence and we wanted to measure a foot we would have to change the length of an inch. So if you had a 6 inch cock it would now be 5 inches.         

The reward comes from being less foolish than those around you, not from "doing nothing".
What is more important is that the folks buying now, are investing in Bitcoin's development (it is still in beta, you know?)
Using the currency increases its utility as currency, so buy and spend, or mine and spend and what you don't spend (save) improves.
How is this not moral?

Your definition of "moral" is perplexing.  The example of length also perplexing.  What is it you are proposing?

honesty!

Read the whole post.

That is how the dollar maintains some price stability. When the demand for currency goes up so does the number of units. The problem is the distribution.

If the dollar was inflated or deflated by a machine and passed out randomly to the members using the currency it would be a moral system. 

FTFY.

I am sure you trolls see how immoral it is for the fed to steal the purchasing power of dollar by printing to much of it. Why cant you see that it immoral to increase the purchasing power of the dollar by not printing enough of them?

You shouldnt lose out when to much money is printed to maintain price stability and you shouldn't gain when not enough is printed either.

But this community doesnt give a fuck about honesty, just enriching yourselves. Thats fucked


 

Lost me again, sorry.  

Inflation and deflation does pass out value to the members of the community, based on their "stake".
The US dollar doesn't maintain price stability.
What is the problem with the dollar's distribution?  Is it the method of distribution (banks and government first, the rest trickle-down so inflation is not experienced by those issuing the currency)?  Or the fact that distribution is unequal (redistribution being immoral)?  Or some other aspect of distribution?

I'd recommend a reading of Saltzman's "Gold and Liberty"
http://www.amazon.com/Gold-liberty-Economic-education-bulletin/dp/B0006PFFZO
It may clarify some things about honest money, and it is not all that long, and really excellent.

Or for lighter but longer reading, on monetary morality:
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/johntamny/files/2012/09/images-1.jpeg


Are you advocating a proof of stake system rather than proof of work? It seems you are alternatively advocating this or its opposite, it is difficult to ascertain from the conversation.

I think Shawshank sort of has it...
This theoretical "not enough" money has never occurred.

If you think of Bitcoin as a tech stock, and bitcoins as shares, maybe it makes more sense to you?

That is certainly true. If the community cared about honesty you wouldn't be allowed to post here.

Maybe you are looking for "Mastercoins" or "Colored Coins" where the virtual is redeemable for a specific quantity of an asset?

We also do this with the Bitcoin Specie pieces whereby bitcoin is redeemable in precious metal.

The goal of stable money and low taxes will lend to prosperity for all, this deflationary period is not going to last forever.  (We are in beta, remember?  It can very easily go to zero, folks are also paid for their risk of capital more than for "doing nothing" as you put it.  The earliest investors took the most risk and are justly and morally compensated for that.)

You seem to miss the point. While you are right that price stability is a good goal for any kind of asset it is stupid to assume that bitcoin has any kine of price stability.
 Bitcoin is per definition deflationary so it makes sense to hold until a given value is reached. You do not gain anything until you exchange for another currency/asset.
Deflation is hard to realize with currencies since it boosts pseudo currencies and forging, not to mention extreme hoarding of said currency. In bitcoin that is no problem, but for nations who rely on people getting into debt and spending lots and lots of cash in order to run the economy it's a disaster, so they try to counter deflation with moneyprinting. Over hundreds of years a certain amount of inflation was deemed productive for the growth of economies and it became standard to print more money in order to regulate said inflation.
What you don't seem to understand is what bitcoin is at the moment; you could compare btc to rare earth metals or uranium, there is only a fixed amount and it is very hard to mine more, since there is pretty much a limit to how much can be mined in a timeframe of your choice. That in itself has nothing to do with honesty and greed at all.
For a good (but not perfect) example let's look at the distribution of oil: All oil producers agreed upon a limiting of supply in order to drive the price up and gain more per barrel and to protect themselves from underbidding one another. Would you call that greedy? Maybe you would, since they did it for profit. But a limiting of supply for an (nearly) unlimited asset is/will/was always the right thing to do since it prevents market collapse and subsequent loss of incentive for producers.
What would that mean for bitcoins? Let's say all the early adopters out there and all the people who bought in 2011 decided to share the wealth and only hold e few btc each. The price would plummet (if all buyers would subsequently sell with minimal gains) and bitcoins would be at a few dollars again. Miners would switch their rigs off since power costs would easily outweight the gains and new transactions could not be verified anymore. The whole system would break down and there still would no price stability.
And all of the above is not even near the complexity of modern game theory......

 

Yes.

I am doing diner and getting it on with my wife tonight so I will respond to the rest of your comments in the morning. We just got a sweet box of wine. ;D

Thank you for clarifying that.  On this we agree. 
There is still much of that conversation that I've not yet been able to fathom. 
In your formulation, is unequal distribution a problem too, or no?  If so why?

Is rewarding good risk-taking immoral?  (Remember, all these "rich" risk takers could still be left with zero)
The current system rewards poor risk-taking (though bailouts and bail-ins), and currency wars.
Which is more moral?

Money is nothing like "a unit in the system of measurement for length": it measures the exchange value of whichever it prices, rather than any of its objective properties - exchange value is neither objective nor constant.

BTC is a currency and it will be a currency to me and to every miner

Prices most certainly can continue dropping forever with a fixed money supply.  Technological advancements always cause prices to drop if those values (prices) are measured with honest money.

1) agreed but my point being for a unit to be effective we all have to use the same unit or a have a fixed conversation, if we use alternate ones.

2) There is a flaw in the reasoning that price stability is good. Price stability reflects only that supply and demand are in equilibrium.

While price stability is the goal it is achieved honestly by a free market and voluntary exchange. Manipulating the units of currency is dishonest. So to explain, given our (all of humanity) needs change and our value judgments personal, the currency unit we all use needs to be fixed and constant, to allow honest exchange in trade.

A fixed currency unit allows humans a fixed scale by which to judge value.

 

maybe the OP is bored and wants your time to giggle mingle snuggle. But its a healthy debate though. ;D

Your reply is both diversionary and misleading.
Yes, deflationary currency does reward you for sitting on your ass.  If a currency is deflating at 100% a day, only a fool would invest it in a business that doesn't grow at a better rate.  So yeah, deflationary money rewards you for being "less foolish," since it's downright stupid to do anything but sit & guard your treasure.

Morality, of course, is subjective.  If you think that it's moral to get rich by doing nothing, while others struggle, then it's perfectly moral for you.  Of course, since money in itself doesn't add any value to the world but only redistributes it, your growing wealthier by adding nothing to the world means that another man grows poorer.
I dig your morals :)

Sitting on your ass as opposed to running a business which employs people, giving them a chance to earn.  Or "enabling commerce," as you put it.
If, on the other hand, you feel that people who invest money are not "enabling commerce," we can also take it there :)

So yes, deflationary money does reward you for sitting on your ass (a colloquialism for "doing nothing") -- the point of my post & the point you failed to address with your endless tangents.
So avoid your buckshot/million quotes approach, and stay focused, pl0x.

Anthony, i asked you to stay focused.  Which part of "deflationary currency rewards you for sitting on your ass" don't you agree with?
***a.ah.ah no, don't put a quotes tag here***
Answer that, and we can take it from here, K?

You're parsing the statement wrong.  The implicit negation is not on the "reward," but on "deflationary."
In other words, you will become wealthy (as in "able to buy more stuff") by doing absolutely nothing.  Do nothing to get rich, that's the intended meaning.  Try doing nothing with inflationary currency, and *POOF!* -- you're broke.  See?

&To your edit:  "for being an anal retentive," yes :)

You'll never see 30-year mortgages denominated in honest money.  You'll just rent and save for a few years and buy a house outright.

Anthony, if i give you an ice cream when you get a B+, i'm rewarding you, right? (assuming you liek ice cream)
You can certainly get a bigger reward if you get an A (Delicious CAEK!!), but don't tell me i didn't reward you for a B.
So, we're good then, right?  Deflationary currency does reward you for sitting on your ass, though you could *possibly* reap even greater rewards by doing something else.  Settled, or ... No?

You'll never see *any* loans denominated in "honest money."  Why lend if you could simply hold & get rich, amirite?

It doesn't matter what you get when you *don't* get a B+.  When you get a B+ you get a reward, which is the point you seem to be missing.
Analogously, it doesn't matter what deflationary money gives you if you *don't* sit on your ass.  When you sit on your as, it rewards you by making you rich, which, again, is the point you keep missing. :)
**the fragmented answers... jeesh... I got to remember those... VEeerrrry irritating >:( :D)

You'll see some short term loans denominated in honest money, but not a lot.  I'm sure you've seen the Lending section of the forum where this sometimes occurs.

That's not lending, that's theves vs usurers. And let's remember that, as we speak, bitcoin is technically an inflationary currency.  The number of coins is increasing by the number of coins mined.  And yet its value is going up -- Magik!

Keep in mind that while your expected salary keeps increasing (to keep up with inflation), in a deflationary economy your salary would keep *decreasing* to keep up with *deflation*.  In 30 year's time you'll be making a handful of change to pay the same mortgage installments you needed to pay when you were making real, *honest* monyz :D

Wife would be pissed to see me sneaking a peek, but happy to get you boys thinking  ;D

I'm afraid o sophist you aren't.
The folks without money aren't getting an ice cream every Friday.  Only your son is.  Apparently, for doing ... nothing.
See?

The poor folks are also getting the reward of having their money that they don't spend doubled, just like your son.  Though nothing x 2 = NOTHING.

If you would like them to not spend the money on food, they wouldn't be able to work for yo ass -- they be dead, and then you'd have to stop buying your son ice cream every Friday for doing nothing & get off your ass & work.  

Where do you suggest the poor people get their money, from their daddy like your son did?
You really gotta think these things through :)

P.S:  And you said your son gets an ice cream every Friday regardless of what he does, or have you forgotten?

No, dude, Please send your son to a better school instead of giving him money & fattening him up with ice cream if his buddies are really blowing their cash on hookers & blow.  What kind of a dad are you?  >:(

P.S:  I have nothing against wealth or greed, i'm arguably both of those.  What i *do* hate is self-satisfied idiots thinking God Himself smiles down upon them & blesses their money lust.

I agree that bitcoin is an inflationary currency, because, like you, I define inflation as an expansion of the money supply. However, a lot of folks around here think of inflation as an increase in prices.  It's that the inflation is controlled and predictable that makes it attractive to those of us that prefer to live below our means for the time being and do most of our spending later.

What about 0% interest?  That doesn't sound like usury to me.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=288543.0

The Islamic loans?  No, that's not usury, if they really are what they seem, that's a really beautiful thing.  Never looked into those, afraid they might turn out to be betting on the debtor defaulting & forfeiting the deposit...

Edit: I had to click that link...  I thought you were talking about Islamic loans, who (like Jews and Christians, but that's a different story) are not allowed to charge interest by Koran.  What you have there is a guy banking on the debtor defaulting & getting a 20% reward.

Edit2:  regarding inflation, both of those definitions are valid, which makes using the word pretty awkward.  If you define what you mean, it sounds like you're talking down to someone, if you don't...  There's usually context that sort-of defines what's meant, like "monetary inflation, but...  Must be a better word.

Yeah, but there used to be a Muslim on this forum who made zero-interest loans.  Seen it in passing a while ago, not really sure.  There are exceptions. 

Still struggling with this. 
Are car insurance companies making money by sitting on their ass and taking the risk (that you don't have an accident)?
Is offering insurance immoral?  Is purchasing it?

If by making money by "sitting on your ass" what you mean is "continuing to take financial risk" is immoral then the question becomes: What is the basis for the immorality?
Would you further suggest that it is somehow also not ethical, and if so, who is it that is harmed?

Car insurrance companys dont have any risks in their business if they are doing just cars. This sound a little funny but if you have 10 000 cars insurace how many of them will crash?    A small amount

Car insurance companies are not sitting on their ass -- they risk their money by offering you a service.  You, their customer, may plow into a crowd of people & cost them much more than you have paid in dues.  This  is in no way comparable to sticking your sound money in your mattress and sitting on it to become rich.  Purchasing auto insurance is an obligation in most US states, it is an industry with plenty of regulations & plenty of slick lobbyists (see: Big Gobment).  You may or may not consider it immoral in that respect.  While obscenely bothersome, is not immoral to me.

If we assume deflationary, sound money (accept it as a premise of our argument), sitting on your ass *guarantees* you profit.  There are no risks involved.

As i have mentioned earlier, money itself doesn't change the amount of goods in the world.  By changing from one money to another, the world doesn't suddenly become wealthier or poorer as a whole.  So, to answer your question, as you & other money hoarders become richer, the rest of the people become poorer, and that's who gets hurt.  The poor people, the have-nots, the ones who always get hurt.

I would much rather see hoarders prosper than the bankers and politicians and those that are well-connected.  People who are actually productive and making positive contributions to society (as determined by a free market) are the ones that should be rewarded with prosperity, not the scammers.

Bankers and politicians will profit with any form of money -- that's their reason for being.  The new moneyed elite will be just like the old moneyed elite, only without the need to keep cycling their money through the economy.  It should be obvious that those driven by the love of money will be the ones who eventually wind up with the most of it.  There are plenty of financial instruments that can be created to exploit any situation.  Shorting, for instance, allows one to profit from failing companies.  Greedy and corrupt people are greedy and corrupt, not stupid and unimaginative.

At least they won't be able to profit by creating bitcoins on a whim, to bail themselves out, fund their deficits, or to "stimulate the recovery".  Stealing people's purchasing power by devaluing their money is off the table with bitcoin.  I think enough people understand that a bitcoin derivative is not a bitcoin.  Peer-to-peer decentralized exchanges will be needed to prevent market manipulation.  We should be seeing those within the next couple of years.

There's the assumption I was missing...  We are starting with the bizarre assumption that Bitcoin is today, sound money.  But by the time Bitcoin becomes sound, there probably won't be much deflation left to it, and very certainly nothing like it is today.  Currently, it is anything but sound.  It is still a very risky venture, and even some of its strongest advocates and investors are giving a much less than 50% chance for success.

If everyone that has bitcoins just "sits around" with them, it is pretty much guaranteed to fail, if even half do this, it is probably dead.

The blasted stuff is still in beta.  Wait until it is version 3.x for this complaint, not beta version 0.8.x

However, the stakeholders are NOT just sitting around, and if everyone did, they wouldn't be worth much anyway.  Most are pestering anyone who will listen about it.  They are programming, they are developing, they are creating economies, they are looking for opportunities to make it succeed.  Some are hacking each other, and ddossing exchanges, and all manner of illicit craziness.  Others are shoring up defenses, building better exchanges, and trying to make a go of it.  We have not yet seen the real bitcoin adversaries even.  
These are very early days.

If you are under the illusion that your money held in bitcoins is not at risk, you probably won't have them for very long.
If you don't believe me, just ask Tradefortress.

If you think sitting on your ass *guarantees* you a riskless profit... I wish you luck with that.

This thought may have come from that guy who forgot about his bitcoins, and then found them.

There are many others that have never found them.  And the reason he forgot about those, was probably because he put the chance for success at much much lower than we are today.

Bitcoin solves some problems while creating others.  There is no need to print money to manipulate the market -- robber barons of yesteryear did it quite successfully without printing a single note.  The only thing required is a large amount of wealth, denominated in virtually anything; that's what makes economics so much fun.

It's hard to discuss money without getting lost in the details, it's a pretty complicated & often counterintuitive thing.  For instance, treating the governments as "them" is not quite accurate when, at least in principle, in United States they are an extension of you, *your* "elected officials."

Politics resemble the free market.  Theoretically, you can run for presidency and, if people like what you stand for & trust you more than your opponent, you should win.  Sadly, just like the case with the free market, practice falls short of theory.  There are established political parties (think monopolies), established laws (established rules of commerce), barriers to entry (campaign funds = starting business capital), etc., etc.  So yeah, the game's rigged.  But the game's *always* rigged -- no matter what's used for money.

On coinfinder guy...
There are many others that have never found their lost coins.  Likely a big part of the reason he forgot about those, was probably because he put the chance for success at much much lower than we are today.  So yes, there are the odd few who made money by taking an early risk and not contributing.  They relied on the enterprise of others.  

Is this Bitcoin's fatal flaw?
Is this the reason we ought all abandon it and try again?  
Well... if so... that's just what litecoin fixes.  Bitcoin's little sibling, not premined, different crypto, more evenly distributed.  Go for it.

In that case i apologize.  I simply assumed that you were championing bitcoin as "deflationary, sound money" as many on this forum do.

You don't have to print money to manipulate the market, but you do have to have a stranglehold on the exchanges.  Peer-to-peer decentralized exchanges will allow people to route around the manipulation.

I don't vote, so no one in the government represents me or my interests.  That's why I think it is accurate for me to refer to them as "them".  I don't play their game.

Not sure if that's addressed to me, but i don't think bitcoin has a fatal flaw.  It has many flaws, though none of them are fatal.  Wealth, as a whole, has ... not a fatal flaw, but an unfortunate & obvious quality -- it rewards those who seek it.  If you have a weakness for romantic stuff like "the selfless & pure in spirit should triumph" & "the meek shall inherit blah blah," that aspect seems a bit unfair.  Though, from a purely rational perspective, my outlook is totally undefendable :-\

You don't need to achieve a stranglehold on exchanges to have a stranglehold on the market.  I'm not quite sure what you mean, but do you feel burnside (of BTCT), for instance, was unjustly manipulating his exchange?  From what i know, he appears to be a pretty upstanding guy.  So, if you can clarify...

As far as you choosing not to vote, that's neither here nor there.  That's like saying the free market is unfair because you chose not to trade. 

+1.

The idea that voting suddenly makes me part of the political class is an absurdity anyway. Walking up to Congress and waving my voter ID card is going to get me very little in comparison to waving around millions in campaign contributions, or better yet, actually being a congressman or other government bigshot. If I really was the government, you'd better believe things would be running differently. If "we" really were the government, things would also be running differently (as a starter, the bailouts would have never happened.)

The sooner we all wake up and realize anyone who arbitrarily claims authority over your life, liberty or property is just a "them," and we start (peacefully) resisting and rejecting them, the better off society will be.

When i ask you to stay focused & resist the urge to splice up everything into fragments, it is not for my sake, but for the sake of others reading this thread.
This is not IRC, it's easy to crap up a thread & make it unreadable.  There are no set rules, but if you limit yourself to a one shot/one kill, the thread will remain readable for others.
/schoolmarm

So, addressing your last fragment:
No, money does not increase the amount of goods in the world.  *Labor* increases it.  Money, food, sex drive, music, greed, insecurities, butterflies, cartoon ponies, and everything else you can think of *may indirectly* affect productivity.

What you have indirectly shown is how your apathy effectively excludes you from participating in democracy.
1. Doesn't vote.
2. Everyone who thinks like him doesn't vote.
3. ? ? ?
4. ^^Wonders why his views are not represented by the elected officials^^

Why is it neither here nor there? Could we just say that you've chosen not to trade because the free market is unfair? And correspondingly, not to vote because politics is corrupt?

It facilitates productivity, like science for example

Money sure is good, but it doesn't improve productivity.  If it does, US Mint should spend more of it on printing presses & print more, directly increasing productivity :)

Choosing not to vote is *exactly* like choosing not to trade "because the free market is unfair."
It is a choice, and a poor one.

It's not that simple. We can say that money improves productivity but it doesn't mean that any quantity of money would do so

I responded to a claim the "Money directly increases productivity."  [boldface mine]
And that's why i ask that the thread is kept tidy :)

Why is it a poor choice to not trade if we agree that the market is unfair? Please expand more on this

Please be concise, the singular for "goods" is uncommon, and must be preceded by an article.

To further clarify, money is not goods.  That's simply false & not open to debate.

I think it is still valid to say that money directly increases productivity

Theoretically, some people can get rich without others getting poor.  This trick, of course, is impossible if by "rich" you mean "money rich," and the currency in question is deflationary :)

No.  A direct relationship is X=Function of Y.  In other words, changing the amount of money in circulation should directly affect productivity.  There is no direct relationship.

If you expect to influence the market, choosing not to trade is a bad choice, unless you expect that your lack of participation would collapse the market.
When viewed from the perspective of voting, it is unreasonable to expect that your lack of participation would collapse the status quo.
Basic.

Sure it has that is what caused the great depression. There was a shortage of currency.


I do think of bitcoin as a tech stock or a collectable. It is not immoral for an asset price to rise or lower. 

No.  "Money is goods" is grammatically correct, to find  examples of usage please see here (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Money+is+goods%22&oq=%22Money+is+goods%22&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8).   Though any authoritative definition of money will tell you that it is not.
Talk about throwing spaghetti against a wall :D

Right but we have to measure subjective entities against objective ones. Like the subjective unit of a byte is equal to a certain number of charged particles.

We cant measure opinions against opinions we have to measure opinions against facts. If we want accurate measurement.

That is what we have been doing for the last 40+ years measuring an opinion against an opinion. We have been measuring length with an inch that changes size. It is like when we measure length with a human foot.  

Throughout the whole of history, money remained inflationary.  That's why :D

Bro, do you even read :D

Strictly speaking (was it you who insisted on being precise?), it's just a matter of choosing a transformation function (your F). Whatever you consider "direct" can be further detailed into multiple intermediate steps, so finally it cannot be called "direct". And vice versa, whatever you called "indirect" may be transformed to a direct relationship by choosing a proper F

Actually, you are trying to save your position by clinging to the things which are insignificant in the context. First of all, it was not a question of changing the amount of money in circulation for money to change productivity (yes, you get your attitude mirrored back). Secondly, I could just propose to compare two economies, i.e money economy and economy without money (barter economy). Would a productivity boost in the first case be a direct result of introducing money into the economy?

Lol, your "authoritative definition" is about.com?  I think my cat posted that one :)
Try something easy, like wikip, and then follow the citations to authoritative works.
Regarding use of "money is goods" -- alternative usages being more common doesn't make mine incorrect.  That's fail logic.  Finding that "bread and butter" is less commonly used than "buttered bread" doesn't make the first incorrect.  "Money is good," otoh, is blatantly incorrect.  Laerne to haz grammarz b4 U grammarnazi :)

Regardless of what F is, if F is a function, Y must be calculable from the value of X.  Curve-fitting for every point is not an option, a function must have predictability & verifiability to be meaningful.  Otherwise, "direct" becomes meaningless & should simply be factored out of the statement.  

So it is you who is resorting to petty semantics to obfuscate an obvious point -- that there is no direct relationship between money and productivity.  There is no correlation (if there is, please explain what you mean), and there's provably no causation.  When there is no causation, the relationship is indirect, i.e. money is one of the many factors at play.

So you implicitly suggested that anyone would want to influence the market (either by participating or abstaining from participation)?


Now you assume that collapsing the status quo was the reason behind the lack of participation? How come?


Basic what? Your implicit assumptions as the only option?

If Y is productivity (some number) and X is amount of money in circulation (another number) you can always find a function which will show you "direct" connection. I don't really get what you're arguing against

And now you blame me of resorting to petty semantics, lol  ;D

No. I explicitly state if one wishes to influence the market, not participating is a bad choice, unless said lack of participation is expected to influence the market in itself. (unless the act of abstaining is an act in itself) 


I stated that it is "unreasonable to expect that your lack of participation would collapse the status quo."  There are no assumptions, simply a statement expressing an if/then relationship.  If you feel that it's a non sequitur, you can point that out.  If you feel the people who do not vote are happy with the way things are, then what the heck are we talking about, amiright?
 

In that case, the word "direct" is unenlightening -- a tautology, adding no information to a statement.
If it does, what do you see it as adding?
Are you implying that OP spews meaningless verbiage?

I wasn't referring to BTCT or any other Bitcoin related exchange specifically.  But, if more and more people continue to convert their fiat into bitcoins, then TPTB will use every means at their disposal to prevent the escape from fiat, including trying to suppress and manipulate the exchanges with HFT and derivatives, like they do in the gold and silver markets.

Edit: or just shut down the Bitcoin exchanges entirely...

Is it the opinion of the OP that....

“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependent on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.”
-Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

Applies equally well to Bitcoin?

It was you who denied "direct" money influence on productivity. I've already told you that almost any effect (especially in economics) which you consider as direct can in fact be divided into a chain of smaller cause-and-effect links (and every link can be subdivided even further, if necessary). In real life, it is rather a matter of convention as to what regard direct and what not. Ultimately, it depends on the scale in which you consider some phenomenon (macro/micro)

Then you switched the theme to a functional dependence as a compulsory condition for "directness" and I've given you a very simple example of two economies (money vs barter) where money influence on productivity (or absence thereof) is evident and can even be described by a simple function taking just two values as an argument and giving you productivity as a result. This example you successfully ignored, though it proves that the very existence of some form of money in circulation is an important factor for productivity on macroscale. An assumption that the magnitude of this influence is dependent on the amount of money in circulation is evident and very well logically founded. The productivity increases with more money in circulation up to some optimal level beyond which injecting even more money can do more harm than good

I don't understand what you're referring to

Sorry, i meant the guy who i was replying to -- not you. 

Yes.

The networks is already centralizing. The machines will get so big and powerful the network will get largely centralized those that were enriched by the adoption of the currency will use the their influence to consolidate the power.   

So many great quotes from the moneymen of that period.
I was thinking more contemporary:
"...is the ideal product... the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy." --WSB

That's the sort of dedication we're looking for :D

Lol, I reread what the OP wrote on the first page, it is garbage, simply put mildly speaking ;D

Did the dollar ever fit your definition? From your "no longer" statement, I assume you'd say that it did under the gold standard. But that's just a few applications of the transitive property away from the same issue... What's an ounce of gold? Ok, it's 8.53x10^22 gold atoms. Great, what's a gold atom...79 protons, 117 neutrons. What's a proton? Some up-quarks, down-quarks...etc. They're all mental approximations/constructs. We've just found them to be incredibly useful. Bitcoin is no different. The abstract construct of there being 2.1 quadrillion units, defined as a mining algorithm, is just fine. Quarks are definable by math as well. Physics, hence reality, essentially reduces to math.

But that's all semantics. However, if you want to make your argument, you have to pay attention to semantics, since that's what your argument is.

It sounds like your issue is with the lack of physicality of bitcoin. You'd be satisfied if we were able to define bitcoin in terms of something physical (nevermind my argument above that that also becomes abstract at its core). If that's the issue, fine. I say it's irrelevant.

Various things and systems have been used for exchange throughout human history. What does the job well in a given time period for a given culture has varied tremendously. Bitcoin dramatically reduces the friction of exchange in modern times, and that meets the fundamental purpose of money, and practical definitions of currency, perfectly.

Your an idiot.  ::)

IT is now now, but it will be for sure

Perhaps they / we will, yes.  Perhaps not.
If such problems eventually arise, perhaps it will be replaced by something better?
We have come only a little way on this adventure, there is far to go. 

This fear may be validated.  What will you do in the mean time?
The question is not just whether Bitcoin is better than what we may imagine, but more importantly, whether it is better than what we have had before.


Bilbo thought to turn back complaining that he has no hat, handkerchief, or money. Dwalin tells him that he "will have to manage without pocket-handkerchiefs, and a good many other things."

Ok, just looked a little above... ;D


Lol ;D

Yes yes how they arent, it is only a big dream but who knows

This whole conceptual construct is faulty, but just to humor this "unit" nonsense that has nothing to do with anything but looking up something in the dictionary then making stuff up --

A Bitcoin is a unit of what you can transact that the network will accept as legitimate and incorporate into the blockchain.

Bitcoin can be a currency if one country choose to, but if it has a way to charge back to reduce any hackers would be good. You know bank get hacked all the time...

It isn't a fucking currency because if I give it to my workers, they said thanks but then ask when I will pay their salary.

Currency isn't buying drugs on CrimeSite nor buying domains on CheapName, that is just a gimick.

Thats because your workers doesn't value Bitcoin, you can pay me Bitcoin if I am your worker :)....

You appear to be confused by the separate but related concepts of "currency" and "legal tender."

the economic laws can change, and they wil adopt BTC liked it or not

Can you cut the grass on my lawn with a pair of scissors for $3 per day? One of my workers does in this third-world country.

Note the lawnmower costs more than his/her annual salary so it doesn't make economic sense to buy one.

I am not confused about what I can use to pay people. Are you?

The issue is not having a payment processor, but rather that the things the workers want to buy downstream don't accept Bitcoin, e.g. the fish vendor standing with her bucket of fish on the street corner.

The only way you get that massive scale is by distributing the currency widely, something Bitcoin can never do (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=222998.msg3615848#msg3615848).

And you just try that. Because I actually put my worker in front a computer a couple of months ago and tried all those different online jobs. Sorry unless they have a high skill such as writing, those online jobs actually pay less by the time you subtract all the overhead and time to find contracts for work. And they are incredibly boring, tedious, and monotonous and quite hard on the eyes and body. My worker would much rather cook, clean, and be outdoors with the nature, fresh, and the beautiful views overlooking the mountain.

Money doesn't always equal happiness. It is the lifestyle that equals happiness.

You don't seem to comprehend basic math. There are 6 billion unskilled people in the world, and an oversupply of manufacturing. There is coming a massive poverty to the world (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=318001.msg3561560#msg3561560). Our only way out is to raise the high-tech skills of the people. But how can we raise the hitech skills of people such as goldbugs who can't even fathom simple algebra (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=222998.msg3615848#msg3615848)?

I normally speak from having immense experience. I have lived all over the world, I have tried most everything there is to try.

Most people pontificate from their armchair and think they are more knowledgeable than me. Hahaha.

Would you like to place a bet of sufficient size, then I will bring my Asian worker online so I can collect the BTC from you?

Put up or shut up.

OK we got the point, you are rich and u have your workers!

No that is not the point. And I am not that rich, but living in a poor country makes me feel rich. (note living in a poor country has some efficiency tradeoffs)

The point is that unless our coin's design distributes the coins widely, we can't get the economy-of-scale to overcome the chicken-and-egg barrier and become a currency.

The merchants accepting Bitcoin are targeting our coin's demographics, which is no where near the range of merchants of the demographics of the masses-at-large.

dont know, realy font know

Seems it might be you soon, based on the mental level and maturity demonstrated.

Enough of this nonsense. I made my point. Good luck.

creator of this topic is a pesimist

You can pay people with anything they choose to accept.

You just can't insist with the force of law that they accept it in satisfaction of a debt ("legal tender").

Bitcoin is not legal tender but that does not mean it is not currency, though "money" is probably a better term, because "currency" often implies "legal tender" even though it does not necessarily denote that.

This guy is clever but his arrogance alienates him strongly. So he ends up being brushed off by other clever guys... ;D

High IQ individuals tend to come across as arrogant, because invariably they must push against the inertia if they want to "do the right thing".

Tell me if Eric Raymond doesn't sound arrogant here in Ego is for little people (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1404).



I envy his writing skills. Also you will not find him arguing in blogs other than his own, where he has absolute authority to censor. Wise, but less adventurous. I am more adventurous.

Btw, I am quite nice and popular when I am not pushing to "do the right thing" or debating technical issues. Unfortunately it is painstakingly tedious tsuris to be perceived as nice (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336350.msg3609921#msg3609921) and also do the right thing, because a fact of the bell curve of IQ is the MAJORITY IS ALWAYS WRONG (as a groupthink, individual diversity is very important though (http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html)).

Any way, I will remove myself from the landscape. I don't want eyes on me. I don't want to be famous or a personality here. I was just trying to "do the right thing" in terms of creating some awareness of the need to fix Bitcoin, as I perceive it.

P.S. Long ago I tried to start some discussion on topics in a nice way in bitcointalk. And what invariably happens is I was attacked and belittled by the gatekeepers of Bitcoin and others were too ignorant of the issues to perceive that the gatekeepers were fooling them. So the only way to really accomplish "the right thing" was to attack more cleverly than they could. In order to penetrate the groupthink and reach the individuals here.

I am sure I also did not do this perfectly. I surely dropped my bad mood on others needlessly at times too. It is a tough job to take all these stones thrown, sometimes I get pissed off too.

I've already told you that you think too high of yourself (you are not that clever  ;D). People boasting about their high IQ are usually psychopathic by nature and have problems socializing as a rule, there's nothing to brag about... 8)

In your place I would too. Nobody wants to be laughed at. Even (and still more) people with "high IQ" ... ;D

I am contented if you want to think that. Thanks. Good luck to you all.

There's no relationship between intelligence and social incompetence.  Nor do you strike me as intelligent anyway.  You remind me of kokjo, a confirmed autist, who often gets things wrong because he has presumed he is correct.

Good riddance to you also! ;D

I think he was given his due, time to roll on guys! ;D

Roll on now :)

lol btc is riseing again

Quite the contrary! If BTC continues going up like this, more and more people will be interested. We had gold at around 1900$, so there's still space to fill in... 8)

My bad! ;D

Actually, we have a clear case here for Gresham's law in action, i.e. bad money (fiat) driving out good (BTC) and at the same time contributing greatly to ever smaller portions (coins become rare and far in between)... 8)

Not only push against the inertia, but also tend to have to carry a bunch of others while pushing.
The arrogance is a defense against the exhaustion.
There are many brilliant people without the arrogance, they tend to get less done.

Just let me say Gresham's law and here comes his lawyer!!! ;D 

The sillygism seems to go like this:

Some geniuses are arrogant asshats.
I'm an arrogant asshat.

Therefore, I'm a genius!

I've advised Gresham to take the 5th. A statement will be issued on his behalf.

"Hold on to a better money product, spend the worst money the seller will accept unless you can get more for the better money and can get more of the better money at the time you spend."

So it was actually you behind the curtain ("the invisible hand")... ;D

So out of all this rant:

Common slang for currency - money. End of story.

Yep i agree in a way!

Money is the units of the measure of value that not only represent value but also have value. Examples would be gold,silver,oil, salt

Like the units of the measure of length that not only represent length but also have length. Examples would be inch worn, barleycorn, ruler, cubit

Currency is the units of the measure of value that has no value but represents value. Examples would be a promise, bitcoin, digits in a computer, bonds

Like the units of the measure of length that have no length themselves but represents length.    Examples would be  inch, meter, mile.


When we are talking about money we are talking about inch worms when we are talking about currency we are talking about inches. 

Gold is a unit. It is definable in objective terms and is a constant.

These kind of self-absorbed, sophormic, and intellectually-meritless conversations belong in a dorm room where dummies who just took an Introduction to Philosophy or Economics can smoke cannabis and make meaningless sounds with their mouths to impress their equally sheltered peers!

Not really.  When i ask a friend if he has any money (got twenty bucks?), i don't particularly care what form it's in -- if he has 20 one dollar bills, two tens, or a single twenty.  I'm looking for a specific value, not a specific number of bills.

If i needed tangible units (got any quarters?), i'm specifically interested in the physical tokens.

Not sure if you're interested in semantics & just want more precise definitions (in that case you seem to be widening them by calling oil "money"), or if i'm missing your point.

Maybe he was referring to gold being physical substance, thus being definable not only in abstract units ("one BTC of bitcoin") but also by some real "yardstick" (e.g. in units of weight)? Though this still doesn't make his stance on money more valid...  8)

What does make it more valid is the intrinsic value of bitCON is not as a currency, but as a speculative ponzi scheme. This is mathematically unarguable.

I didn't get your point, please expand more on this  ???

The Bitcoin Wiki (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Is_Bitcoin_a_Ponzi_scheme.3F) differentiates bitcoin from a Ponzi scheme thusly: "In a Ponzi Scheme, the founders persuade investors that they’ll profit. Bitcoin does not make such a guarantee."

Good enough for me.

Strictly speaking, he is not even correct on the units which are defined by some physical metric. If we take his own example ("an inch is not real but it is definable"), it turns out that this very metric of space (length) is not constant but increasing with time through the expansion of the Universe (i.e. the scale of space itself is changed). So his inch is by no means fixed or definable... ;D

I agree.

Now quit bogarting that joint, motherfucker, and pass it.

Kind of agree. The amount of people using it is what that affects the price.

+1
"Bitcoin is not a currency", the "US dollar is not a currency".  What rubbish.

Bitcoin it's not money at 100%, because it's not fully portable, like gold, usd,eur, ..., requires Internet and specific software and hardware.

I am using "redhat" since 1998. In 2010 I tried it, but the error https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=319901 said NO,  in 2011 again NO, and in 2012 I built custom Openssl,..., 2013** error persist, legal problem in Openssl license.

Bitcoin could be cash, Internet FIAT cash that you can change for FIAT money or a better money, it's only part of money concept. But for the moment it's only speculative market with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect

**:https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021898

Everything you said in the quoted part is fully applicable to any non-cash operations and payments... ;D
Would you call currency in non-cash circulation as being not 100% money? 8)

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/bitcoin-is-no-longer-a-currency/274859/

It is not currency!

There is no such thing as intrinsic value. The theory of intrinsic value says that value comes from the properties of the item. It is never the item that gives things value it is a construct of someone or somethings mind. 


When people talk about intrinsic value they are talking about objective market value. They are talking about things that are factually valuable.  The is only the subjective value of the individual and the objective value of the market. There is no such thing as intrinsic value. 

Yeah, they said so in the news... 8)

People are waking up to the realization it is not currency. When they realize that then they will say what is bitcoin? and the answer will be a digital collectible. 

What you call here (and there) as the subjective value of the individual has long been known under the name "utility", or rather marginal utility... 8)
The objective value of the market you refer to is known under the name "price", or rather relative price... ;)

prepare yourself


A bitcoin is the value of the total amount of labour done by computing devices over the duration from 2009 - 2140 to produce one of 21 million bitcoins.

this means that 1 bitcoin = 1/21million*(avg_total_mining_energy_consumption_per_year_converted_to_gold+mining_equipment_cost_per_year_converted_to_gold+miscellaneous_cost_per_year_converted_to_gold)*(131 years), and this has the units of gold weight in kg.

What you here refer to as the value of the total amount of labor is known as "cost", or unit cost  ;D

I hate to come in and puncture the discussion, but:

Intrinsic value means value that is not money value aquired because the stuff is used in indirect exchange. Gold and silver is the only money which have intrinsic value, if you don't regard real estate as money too. Some do. Fiat money and bitcoin does not have intrinsic value
You can not eat it, live in it or make pretty decorations.

Bitcoin and fiat only have value because others want it. And they want it because others again want it. Eventually it comes back to you. It seems like a circular argument, and it is, and we don't care, because the value is real.

No intrinsic value is perfect. Imagine if grain was money. People would starve as you hoard it. Hoarding money harms nobody, it just enables others to use, now, the resources that you, the hoarder, does not use even if you have earned it.

Currency just means the most used money. It does not mean the best money. The traders, that is you and me, decides what is money, the most used ad the best. For me, the non-printing is the best quality, others like the most used. So I adapt to the requirements of the seller of goods. No problem. There is no restrictions on conversion.

And this is why the term "intrinsic value" is such a poor choice of words.

Correct! I wrote that pretty fast, but I felt that no one else was saying it :P

Unit cost is not such a very good measurement of value.
If something is only worth its cost, one is better off expending that same cost on something else with more virtue.  That further suggests the design would be a poor one, and valueless.

It just means direct use value. It is well defined in the money realm. Do we really have to repeat this a thousand times?

True, however as that energy could have been expended to produce other work, as you can most likely (however more indirectly) convert the economic cost to electricity consumption, you can figure out the value of the production of a bitcoin in comparison to other energy intensive exploits, such as gold mining, food production, etc.

Would you guys value such a calculation? I might get to work and try and derive a total economic value up to this point, but I don't know if I can easily get data on the cost to produce all the PH/s that we currently use, unless I take a standard total electric cost/PH/s

What you guys are discussing here is commonly called the 'labor theory of value' in economices, and is generally considered a false method of valuation.  As an example, I might be able to get competitive bids on how much it woudl cost me to have a 16 foot by 8 foot by 8 foot hole dug in my backyard, but that does not mean that I can automaticly increase the selling price of my home by the labor cost of theat swimming pool.  The value of the property is whatever the buyer with the highest desire is willing and able to offer for it.

True, I was going to take an average ASIC value (when ASIC's arrived on the scene), and before that an average GPU value and plug those into the system, however that would take a little more research than the simple thought experiment version. EDIT: It would probably be easier to put everything into terms of dollars, since its significantly easier to get a dollar value of a GPU/ASIC than the total electrical energy costs of producing one.

EDIT: In response to moonshadow, the price of bitcoins is currently the price on mtgox, in your analogy that's what people value that house with a swimming pool, the cost of labour of putting that in however, is generally the "true value" of whatever work you put into the swimming pool, however without a perfect system the true value is never reached due to speculation.

In that case it would be close to that, however that gets into some different issues, if EVERYONE used slave labour to build pools, then it would be the value of the food required to feed the slaves + the lost labour that could have gone towards productive enterprise such as mining (assuming a roman slavery system). However if only a handful of people were doing this, the market value would be the same as all others, however the true economic value would be the total cost of building the pool, theres a similar parallel with bitcoin mining / cypherlocker botnet masters, both are extremely unethical but produce a product indistinguishable from the legitimate.

EDIT: I've never taken an economics course outside of engineering, so this is mostly just conjecture, however I can't see how the true value of a bitcoin would be less than the total amount of productive  energy that was diverted to its production. I can certainly see it being higher as there is significantly more utility to bitcoin than gold, however.

SECOND EDIT (I'm interested now!): What if on top of the diverted labour value (what was discussed before), you factor in a coeffecient of utility, the coeffecient would take into consideration the amount of transactions that bitcoin competitors (paypal, western union, etc) deal in on a volume basis as a percentage of the rest of the global economy and used that as a multiplicitve factor in the derivation, I feel like that would be more accurate and would factor in the "intrinsic value."

Good point, in that case a risk factor should be added as well to the calculation, I do believe my "borrowed" corporate finance textbook has examples of risky endeavours, however bitcoin's risk is sort of unknown at this point and I could probably only create a time based speculative risk factor (we've existed for this long without any fundamental flaws, the chance of a major flaw decreases by n% every year.) I think that risk assumption is valid, particularly because we have very excellent programmers/white hats that have been attacking the bitcoin protocol since its inception, and it's been adapted and reinforced considerably since.

There used to be a ton of hobbyist miners, which is why I believe the price before used to be quite low in comparison to now. There is very little chance of "hobbyist" miners being able to produce any amount of bitcoins, compared to the "serious" miners who have invested considerable amount of economic value (aka diverted labour) into buying bitcoin ASIC mining farms, which is a partial reason why I believe the price increased, the miners themselves value Bitcoin more now than they did previously. Also the amount of money going to pay electricity per PH has been decreasing steadily, which means that the people with "free" power don't have anywhere near the advantage they once had.

Again this all looks past the speculative nature and looks just at the concrete value of a single bitcoin, which I think will continuously rise until the "value" reaches a meaningless value (in relation to Fiat, the "current" standard of potential labour)

My risk factor is mostly the chance that a 0 day exploit might surface before the general white hat programming community see and fix the issue in a client update, since the protocol is in a constant state of updating I don't see this being an issue unless SHA-256 itself is broken and needs to be updated, in that case I could see an issue, however I feel that besides that potential outcome, my risk factor reaching an asymptotic low sometime in ~2020 would take this particular outcome into consideration, I'll talk to gmaxwell about it.


Will do, I'm writing a spreadsheet right now, to be honest this will probably fit better in blog format but I'll do both to start. I'm not sure exactly what constants I should use for some of these coeffecients so I'll be putting it all in a google docs for everyone to see once I build the framework.

What you name here as "intrinsic value" acquired through exchange is properly called utility. It exists only in our minds, and it's exactly the difference between our conceptions of what has more utility ("intrinsic value") at the time of exchange that makes this exchange ever possible. Money plays only auxiliary role here... 8)

If you do really think that hoarding money harms nobody then you are flat-out wrong. They can't use the resources you mention because there is no money that you have stashed away (provided there's no additional emission to make up for the "loss"). Ultimately, this would provoke a drop in prices, so producers will suffer 8)

And don't try to argue against what I have just said. All of this has been known and proven long ago... ::)

Can't tell if serious.

Almost everything somehow related to money that people refer to in this topic with ad hoc names has been properly termed in economic literature... 8)

I don't think the number you calculate would make any sense because too different equipment in too diverse conditions has been employed to make all those coins out there. In short, too much variance within each variable... 8)

If what you call "intrinsic value" is actually what the eggheads call "utility" then, I'm afraid, it is you who is wrong here... 8)

So if you substitute utility (which exists only in subjective form) for intrinsic value, you will get rid of the confusion that might have arisen from using incorrect terms... 8)

"Intrinsic value," used in economics context, simply means the underlying value of an asset (as opposed to its market value).
It can always be quantified in dollars, that's what makes it useful.
The philosophical concept is literally "valuable in itself," with examples being truth, beauty & love.  These things can not be quantified in units other than themselves, unless by "love" you mean "a tuggy from a hooker."

This notion of intrinsic value that things have value in and of themselves has no application in economics. Economics begins and ends with what people think about value (i.e. subjective assessment of value), intrinsic value as you describe it here is of no interest to economics... And if you read me more closely, you will see that I said it directly that utility is not intrinsic value but subjective valuation existing only in the mind. Now you blame me of confusing these two notions...  8)

I just said that you substitute utility for intrinsic value to keep things correct and clear ;D

I don't want to turn this into a lesson in economics.  This should get you started:

I posted to differentiate "intrinsic value" as used in economics from the term's use in philosophy, not to lecture on economics.  Suffice it to say that the term is used differently in these two fields, having separate and distinct definitions.  

A bit more on economics usage:
Intrinsic value of a company is only relevant if it could be expressed in dollars and cents, we're not writing poetry.  If you can not express "good will" in terms of dollars when determining the intrinsic value of an asset, you either a) don't have sufficient information b) aren't any good, or c) said good will plays no part in the asset's value, and should be ignored.

Some examples:
Your love of the company it does not affect its intrinsic value.  Other people's love of the company does.

An analyst is able to say that a stock is "undervalued" without instantly falling into a logical contradiction because: "intrinsic value."
A philosopher can answer the question "what's beauty good for?" because: "intrinsic value."
Same phrase, different meanings. :)

Investopedia is confused. anth0ny and deisik seem to be agreeing with each other that "intrinsic value" is an incoherent term. And it is. Sure, it's used in common parlance...but one of the first lessons of clear thinking is not to bring terms of everyday talk into a technical context, even if certain academics are in the habit of doing do.

Why then would you use it in this discussion, to make things more complicated or what? 8)

One of the first lessons in clear thinking is not to reject a something with a knee-jerk reaction, but first ask yourself "maybe i don't get it?"
What you have described above is not clear thinking, but stubborn contrarianism.  A donkey can do it.

In simpler terms:
If 99% of the academia disagrees with you, chances are it's you who is wrong.  Not guaranteed, but plenty good for me.

Investopedia is wrong.
Wikipedia is wrong.
Philosophers are wrong.
The society is wrong.
Only Anthony, who likes to spellingz his naem like a 4realz h4x0r, is right.

Appeal to authority and appeal to popularity. Not likely to fly on bitcointalk.

Actually, I don't say that "intrinsic value" is an incoherent term. I just say that this term has a very limited usage in economics nowadays, and it was used by anth0ny in a sense for which there is already a proper well-established term. I can't say anything specific and definite about its use and coherence beyond economics...  8)

When dealing with definitions, the only thing one *can* appeal to is authority.  Hence "authoritative reference," "authoritative definition."
When dealing with common usages, the only appropriate reference is popularity.
Basic stuff :)

Remember when I said, "one of the first lessons of clear thinking is not to bring terms of everyday talk into a technical context"? That is exactly what I was talking about. A dictionary definition reflects common usage, which is frequently sloppy. If you want to think and communicate clearly when using words, you've got to ensure that your definitions are clear and unambiguous. Sometimes a word needs to be more clearly defined, and sometimes it needs to be abandoned because it is useless in precise contexts. This is a case of the word being useless.

We're dealing with facts here.  What you suspect doesn't really matter.  There are two distinct definitions of "intrinsic value" used in two different fields, philosophy and economics.  Regardless whether *you believe* in intrinsic value, the definition remains the same.

Dumbed down:  If you don't believe in God, doesn't affect the definition of the word.

I did not offer you a dictionary definition.  Instead, i gave you the correct technical definition of the term as used in the field of economics.  I referenced Investopedia, which concerns itself exclusively with economics.
If i referenced a dictionary, or Equestria Daily, you might have a point.

Of course the two are related.  They both use words, and the words are identical.  It's the context that differentiates the meanings.

The word leaves is identical to the word leaves, until you provide context.  For instance:

"A panda who eats shoots and leaves" is fine, but "A panda who eats, shoots, and leaves" is a bad panda.


If you think that God could not be adequately defined, a whole bunch of dictionaries disagree with you, but this is yet *another* tangent you are derailing the thread on.

I try to address the "calculation" I was talking about earlier here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345357.0

critique away gentlemen, however for now I'm off to write a powerpoint before I pass out from lack of caffine  ::)

Wall-0-text shrunk.  Here are your answers:

One minute you're arguing that "intrinsic value" has the same meaning in economics and philosophy.  Then you shoot yourself in the foot with "Value is not intrinsic," (http://quote author=anth0ny link=topic=318046.msg3700347#msg3700347 date=1385325661) i.e. "no such thing as intrinsic value in economics."  You can't possibly have it both ways.

We're not waxing philosophical here, simply nailing down definitions.  Mundane shit. Please try to stay focused.

To sum up:
1.  You set out to convince me that the meaning of "intrinsic value" is one and the same for both philosophy and economics.
Even though there are entirely different definitions provided by every major reference source.
You raged against Investopedia, wikip, and every major reference source.
You got sidetracked into convincing me that there is no such thing as intrinsic value in economics -- an irrelevancy bordering on non-sequitur.
You got sidetracked on another topic, God, and Bob Barker.
You completely forgot that you needed to show (1).

Now that i reminded you what you were talking about, care to make a cohesive argument?  Stay on topic & focus pl0x.

If you don't think there is such a thing as intrinsic value, that's somewhat tenable.  But it begs the question:  Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
Why insist that the definition is the same for both phil & econ??  It would have saved us both a whole bunch of typing.

To nail this down:
Intrinsic value doesn't exist.
The definitions given by authoritative references are definitions of nothing.
This nothing, is identical for both philosophy and economics, though reference texts of respective fields claim otherwise.
One nothing's the same as another nothing.
Amirite?

Ornaments and electrical contacts and more. Direct use value of gold.

This

Good God!  I'm looking at three pages of posts wherein some members are, quite literally, arguing semantics.

This is why I said early on that 'intrinsic value' is a bad term to use, because it's imprecise, and means slightly different things in different contexts.  In a field where precision is paramount, it just leads to misunderstandings.

Let me help...

When used in an economic sense, "intrinsic value" is better stated as, "the value that the owner might attribute to some intrinsice characteristics or properties common to the object".  It was never a theory that an object can have a definable value as an intrinic property unto itself.  Even within the context of 'intrinsic value theory of money', all value is subjective.  Which is why we need markets to tell us what the price is.  (There is no way to determine how much any particular person may value his purchase, beyond what he is apparently willing to pay for it; but even then, the price isn't usually set by the buyer, but by what the next willing buyer isn't willing to pay.  Using ebay as an example, the final price of any auction is determined by what the first loser isn't willing to bid, not what the winner was willing to pay to win.)

Intrinsic theory of value then.  Yes, all value is subjective; even 'intrinsic' value.

Well played.

:p

It seems to me (and probably I'm not alone in such an opinion) that your purpose was not really to help us out (actually, we have all agreed to expel the term as useless) but rather to confuse matters even more...

If that is so, then please accept my appologies and ignore my post.

Never mind! I read your post but couldn't grasp where you were going, so read the comments and saw it hadn't even been worth trying...

What a non-definition.
Let me help:

With money, intrinsic value is the same as the value for direct use, as in ornament, electrical contacts and so on.

Note 1: It is still subjective like all other values. Note 2: that jewelry is not only ornamental, people behang themselves with gold jewelry also for the money value of it. Note 3: It is not possible to tell how much of the gold value is intrinsic, and how much is money value. Note 4: The only advantage of a money having intrinsic value, is that it can not fall to zero value, therefore gold will always be available and ready should it become money again after a period of gold-is-not-money.

Hey, I thought we had already done with the term... No more helping hands please!

Not sure, its akin to the Apple "I am rich" app and showing off nice cars.

I think not. There is a value to the system as such, as it may support trade better than less ideal money. This is just like the value of the telephone system, different from the value of the value of the terminals, the network equipment and the services. This value is not economic, even if it obviously is to the good for society. The same for the court system. It is obviously valuable, but you can not set a price on it.

You have a point.

There is no such thing as intrinsic value. The theory of intrinsic value states that the value is derived from the item, and there is no such thing as labor value.. Value never comes from the item no matter what it is. Value is always a product of our consciousness. Value comes from our minds it is just a concept.

We could have the best item ever and if we don't choose to value it then it has no value, we could work our entire lives and never create one bit of value if other people don't chose to value our work.  

There is only the subjective value of an individual and the objective value of the market place.

I can say I don't value water, but the market can never say mankind doesn't value water. When you say intrinsic value you really mean objective market value.

Bitcoin does not have objective value. I can say i dont value it and mankind can say it doesn't value it.

The good news is currency is not supposed to be valuable. Currency doesn't have value any more and an inch has length. An inch represents length, currency represents value. It isnt value itself. When you hold currency you are not a saver of value you are the saver of a promise of value. The person holding value, he is the saver the person holding currency is the debt holder. Currency is and has always been an IOU. The currency supply is really a promise supply.

People think that debt based currency is bad, but all currency is debt based and always has been. If all debts public and private where to be paid off then currency would no longer exist. The fundamental problem is that with a dollar system those promises can be anything, we cant quantify those promises. If we want to measure those promises we have to do it in terms of an objective unit of value.

1 bitcoin is = to x number of joules of WORK (not labor)        
  

We have already agreed on this just two pages earlier... Did you read them?

Yes, and this subjective value is called marginal utility, whereas the objective value of the market place is called price (not necessary in money terms). Let's start at last using correct and strict terms?

Agreed.  Marginal utility is a much more precise term, and has everything to do with bitcoins & gold.  Gold's marginal utility is very small compared to it's market price, so the argument that gold has marginal utility (while assuming that bitcoins do not) is of small merit at best.  Gold is, by and large, valued by the market for it's monetary uses; particularly it's store-of-value monetary utility.  Bitcoins are, by and large, valued by the market for it's monetary uses; particularly for it's frictionless-global-medium-of-exchange monetary uses.  Neither gold nor bitcoin can compare to silver for non-monetary utility, but then silver isn't really a monetary commodity in our modern industrial society, but an industrial commodity.  It's value is, by and large, set by current and near term industrial demand for silver; not by long term speculation on it's future trade value.

I could argue that the Bitcoin network has features that grant bitcoins a non-monetary utility, but I don't think that such an argument is worthwhile.

Who says it is not a currency?!

Watch the video about senate

the people , by using it as a commodity or a store of wealth or investment rather than a currency.

+1 it is obvious at this point that it is not currency, but a asset like art or baseball cards.. that is to say a shit asset with no objective measure of value.

Objective measure of value? What do you mean by this and is there any at all (with no concern for Bitcoin)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV-32qmLG64#t=121


http://www.garynorth.com/public/11857.cfm no relation

I mean that the unit of measure is objectively valuable. Like gold, or joules of work. 

There is no place for objective value in modern economics in the sense you mean here. The theories claiming otherwise (for example, labor theory of value or intrinsic theory of value) have been abandoned by most economists for not being able to correctly describe real life economic phenomena...

There is an objective theory of value and it has not been abandoned also there is a reason it is called a theory and not a law. 


http://mises.org/daily/4907/

"The actual process through which subjective valuations lead to objective market prices is complicated. The average person doesn't need to understand it. However, everyone should be aware of the basic principles of modern value theory, as sketched in this article. Precisely because value is subjective, voluntary trades are win-win situations. At the same time, market prices are objective measures of wealth, and they allow firms to calculate whether they are using resources efficiently or not."

The theory you are referring to here is correctly called subjective theory of value. And nowadays it is accepted by most mainstream schools of economics. Actually, I meant exactly this theory when I wrote in reply to your post that there is no objective value in modern economics...

You obviously didnt read the article. Value is subjective to the individual... but objective to the market.

"One of the most subtle aspects of modern economic theory is the relation between subjective value and objective money prices."

What you (they) name here as objective value is called price... I intentionally asked you what you meant by objective value. Your answer was that objective value is "the unit of measure is objectively valuable. Like gold, or joules of work"...

None of those things have objective value. Water and food have objective value to life. Things with objective value can be phased as a fact. For example I can say that mankind values water, I can not say that mankind values baseball cards or bitcoins.

No i cant say that mankind value art... I can only say that some of mankind values art.

If you really believe that bitcoin is a good store of value you have not been paying attention.

Actually, read that article from which you quoted, the subjective theory of value does explain it in a simple and coherent way. Or, if you have time, read Carl Menger's Principles of Economics (it is not big), the book which gave rise to that theory... Water as well as air (and anything for that matter), they all have subjective value (if you're drowning the subjective value of water will be negative to you), that book explains such things pretty well...

Read and comprehend before you start writing. 1) as I said the transfer part is irrelevant for bitcoins value. A bitcoin is not valuable just because I can transfer it cheaply. If I could transfer "adfadf" cheaply it would not make "adfadf" valuable. Get it? 2) Bitcoins are not real so they cant be pretty. If you like the logo the logo is not rare. Think before you spam! 3) "Ive never been forced to use the dollar" not worth replying to 4) whats wrong with trading things for lottery tickets? are you trolling...???