Bitcoin Forum

I say that a commodity is a raw material of fairly uniform quality which is bought and sold in bulk and used directly to manufacture a wide variety of goods.

You can find definitions that say otherwise, but I consider them bastardizations of the true definition of a commodity.

I do not consider bitcoins to be a commodity.

What is your definition of a commodity? Do you consider bitcoins to be a commodity?

This topic was being discussed over in the animated movie thread (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=697.0) and in these other threads which I just ran into again (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=815.msg9669#msg9669).

creighto, I concede that my gold coin example was a poor one since a gold coin is only made of gold and can still be used just as effectively as a raw material as gold bars. I was saying that the coin-ness of the of the gold coin is not a commodity, but yeah, bad example.

New thread is good idea.

If it has to be a raw material then you can't even include purified gold, which is a coherent definition, but not normal usage.

My sense of the word commodity has strong emphasis on the homogeneous quality and fungibility and divisibility aspects.

The "commodities markets" only sell the useful and common commodities, so absence from there means a thing is either not a commodity, or not useful, or not common, but doesn't tell which.

I think it is a commodity for the reasons I posted in another thread. I'll repeat them here.

Edit: In summary, I think Satoshi created a digital commodity by code fiat. I think the user base as a whole is utilizing Satoshi's commodity to mentally mint and trade coins.

Most common discussions tend to equate bitcoins to a commodity backed currency like gold coins.

----

In reality bitcoins are the first master planned scarce COMMODITY. It is unique to this commodity that we know it's total available quantity in the universe. We also know exactly how hard it will be to discover this commodity over the next XX years. Also this commodity is generally seen as easily divisible and fungible, but otherwise it is useless.

The only thing not master planned about this commodity is what people will do with it. Since there are no other known uses competing for this commodity, some people think bitcoins should be used as money. Others think this is a highly implausible foundation for monetary policy.

----

commodity |kəˈmäditē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
a raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee.
• a useful or valuable thing, such as water or time.


If I can barter for it. It is a commodity. What I choose to do with it is up to me.

Most of the discussion on this list as it relates to bitcoins comes from a barter mentality. Perhaps you haven't noticed.

Really, no European says, "My salary is an investment in Euros". American's don't say, "I'm putting penny's in this piggy bank waiting on an increase in demand for pennies."

Money is a medium of exchange. I swapped an ounce of gold for 1000 loaves of bread, using $1000 to speed the process. I did three months of work and I'm going to buy a car with it after my vacation, using the $20,000 in my wallet.

If there is "excess demand" for money, that is a flaw in a monetary system not a feature. It is only when you think of commodities that such terms make sense.

----

Actually I was writing an example of third party trade but it was a lame example so I erases it. Yours was much better.

I think we are in "violent agreement" on the topic. :-)

I prefer my currency as an abstract accounting that, I feel, should not have commodity characteristics.

My best example is I don't think currency should increase in value as a result of demand. All commodities have this characteristic naturally.

Some feel differently and certainly commodity currencies have existed in the past but they died out. I think that is less conspiracy than a diminishing in utility compared to non-commodity based currencies.

A raw or processed material that is useful in some widely known, common way; that is of fairly consistiant quality.  It does not need to be something that can be made into something else, although that is a good example.  Grain is a commodity that can be made into bread.  Oil is a commodity that can be made into petrol, but petrol itself is a commodity that is used to provide motive power as opposed to being made into anything else.  (Unless you consider carbon dioxide a manufactured end product)


Since their only use is as a medium of exchange and a store of value, no.  If I can't eat it, burn it, or build with it; it's probably not a commodity.




Duly noted, and thanks.  Perhaps a better example would be wood.  It can be made into many things, but once cut into a shape, cannot (easily) be made into anything else except firewood.  Therefore the 'added value/utilty' of the wood is in the utiltity of the object.  Like the wood handle for an ax.  If the handle ever breaks, the 'utility/value' of the ax is reduced to it's scrap value, until such time as the ax head can be mounted to a new handle.  The only thing that the broken handle is good for is a few minutes of heat in the woodstove.

Your statement that bitcoins are a planned commodity is not supported by your chosen definition.  Would you care to explain why you think that bitcoins are a commodity?

If you were to replace "commodity" with "currency" I could accept your statement as a valid way of viewing bitcoins.  Such as it is, I still cannot except it. 

Are they a commodity?  I think it depends on what definition you choose to use.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:commodity&sa=X&ei=lw1nTObrHYG88gaOosCyBA&ved=0CBUQkAE (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:commodity&sa=X&ei=lw1nTObrHYG88gaOosCyBA&ved=0CBUQkAE)

I'm not sure what the most important question is here - the definition of the word "commodity", or the question of exactly what type of economic object Bitcoins are and whether that has consequences? Just on the basis of what springs to mind when I hear the word, I usually think of copper, wheat, and similar physical resources as the intended meaning of "commodity". If it is possible to extend the idea of a commodity to the digital realm at all, though, Bitcoins are in some ways more "commodity like" than a lot of other digital objects.

What about the in-game resources in an MMORPG? Is "wheat" grown in a videogame economy a commodity, or not?

In general, as an economic actor, I'm not so certain that currencies are actually as different from other things as some of the discussion seems to assume. A five dollar bill is a physical object I can barter with very easily - but I dont perceive I have done anything fundamentally different if I buy a chair with a 5-dollar bill or if I trade a t-shirt for the chair. An even better example is a traditional investment portfolio - in a highly diversified portfolio, stocks, currencies of different nations, gold, perhaps some fine art, will all be held by the investor and to the investor, there is no fundamental difference between the different categories. They are all chosen to try to achieve a different balance of costs, benefits, and risks.

To me the main reason we regard currencies as "different" is that they are treated differently BY LAW and most people think of currency only in terms of the government controlled monopoly fiat currency they deal with on a day to day basis. In a more open free market I don't think a currency would seem very different than any other kind of "paper investment" that represented some kind of ownership or contractual obligation or certificate of deposit - because that is what currencies usually are!

In fact Bitcoins might be said to be a "certificate of deposit" of mathematically provable trust issued by the "bank" of bitcoin users!

I can give a rational, but probably not a better definition than those I already included.

I'm assuming you meant my use of the word "commodity" rather than "first" (hyperbole), "master planned", or "scarce" (supported).

I already defined commodity stealing from the dictionary above.
"A useful or valuable thing, such as time or water"

But my best definition is still:
"If I can barter for it. It is a commodity."


Allow me to rationalize by stealing from wikipedia as well.

"A commodity is a good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market. Commodities are substances that come out of the earth and maintain roughly a universal price.[1]It is fungible, i.e. equivalent no matter who produces it."

Bitcoins seem to fit here. Except for the "come out of the earth" part which just seems silly there.

"one of the characteristics of a commodity good is that its price is determined as a function of its market as a whole. Well-established physical commodities have actively traded spot and derivative markets."

Bitcoins seem to fit here as well.

"There is another important class of energy commodities which includes electricity, gas, coal and oil. Electricity has the particular characteristic that it is either impossible or uneconomical to store, hence, electricity must be consumed as soon as it is produced."

They've included electricity, so commodity is an acceptable term even for something virtual.

Interestingly, currencies are often traded as commodities rather than being used for their value in facilitating trade.

Wikipedia defines "commodity trader" and from their references lots virtual things like debt that "can be seen as a commodity." It also references currency market from there.

So nothing seems to exclude my use here.


But really I use the term for the reasons I gave above. People tend to draw more parallels to bitcoin's "gold-ness" then to it's "coin-ness"  "Scarce like gold", "invest in it like gold", "discovered over time like gold"

Nobody says it's round and shiny like coins.

Very Simple Simon said to me:

A commodity is a thing I can sell, be it time, my body or my gold ring.

Currency is the value I place in things, so how much I will pay for time, a body or a gold ring.

Since currency is only a proof that I have sold a thing and a promise if I give it to you, you will be able to buy a thing, it cannot be a commodity because all it is, is a promise to another commodity.

However, a currency can be a commodity since I can sell is for another currency.  The currency you have seen for sale upgraded its status to that of a thing, so to the status of a commodity for the period of time it is offered for sale. Once it is sold, it is no longer a thing since once again it has become only the promise to a thing.

I am pretty sure I have not helped this debate at all.

COMMODITY. In the most comprehensive sense, convenience, accommodation, profit, benefit, advantage, interest, commodiousness. -Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition.

Black's goes on to define commodity in the commercial sense, and I think we should stop right there! For Bitcoin to survive, it must not in any way threaten "TPTB"; the Federal Reserve and the financial establishment. I caution us to not use the same loaded language that they very effectively employ to control competition.

I think commodity is exactly what Bitcoin is; money, currency, and dollar equivalents it is NOT. It is vital that we understand that Bitcoin is both an implementation and a commodity, and to concern ourselves with the former only. The public will discover Bitcoin's utility and make whatever trades and exchanges they will, but for us to claim that Bitcoin is convertible or useful in this way leaves us exposed to allegations of fraud, and I can cite cases where they have gone to ridiculous lengths to accomplish just that.

It is a commodity within the game if you can transfer it to another player *and* it has some other use within the game.  A game weapon, for example, that can be given to another player at the will of the owner, is a commodity.

These already posted definitions are incomplete and overly broad.  They don't help, nor (much) harm your opinion.


Except that bitcons are not a 'good' in the economic sense.  For that matter, the terms 'good' and 'commodity' are largly interchangable in the economic sense, and this is a circular definition.  Even if it were a well written defintion, it doesn't support your position that bitcoins are something more than a currency.


There are whole markets founded upon the spot trading of floating currencies as well.  This does not mean that the US dollar or the Euro are commodities.  I think that you are going to have a very hard time supporting this position.



Electricity is not 'virtual'.  It is a very real thing, one that can do very real harm if not handled carefully.



Different people can look at things differently from a mathmatical or investement perspective while still understanding the differences.  And as good a reference Wikipedia may be, it's not remotely authoritative on the subject of economics, or anything else that I've ever studied.


Nothing that you have referred to would, no.  Yet nothing that you have referred to really supports your position, either.


And the point that I had made that started all of this talk is that all of those people that draw those parrallels are *wrong*.  One can be in the majority and still be wrong, Economics is a science, not a consensus.  And science doesn't care about our opinions.  Semantics is how we frame the science.

Very true. It is very dangerous to classify bitcoin as a currency. Far better to declare "sale of virtual goods" on the tax return than to declare a currency exchange cause the man will find a way to accuse you of laundering money. For the sake of safety I vote we declare it a commodity, whether it is or not :)

Trying to avoid labeling bitcoins to 'stay under the radar' of those whose little fiefdoms might be threatened by a competitive currency is a self-defeating exercise.  We are more likely to face charges of fraud by perpetuating Economic myths around here than by calling a spade a spade.  There are several local currencies that continue to exist within the United States that do not draw the hammer of fraud charges by avoiding claiming they are 'like' anything.  Avoiding reality will just attract more attention.

Without denying that I deserve some of your grief... ;-)

Give me another crack at justifying my point of view.


I really do stand by my definition, "If I can barter for it. It is a commodity."  as capturing the true spirit and semantics of the word commodity as used in standard everyday American English. Commodity is really used to mean, "something, that can be bought, sold, or traded." Perhaps that makes a better definition.

There are other more restricted definitions that have different connotations depending upon industry. Usually "the thing" is something fungible, but even that usage is flexible. Used cars are not fungible but to the used car industry, they are simply commodities. The same is true for diamonds and the diamond industry.


I hear you saying that "the thing" must have some use other than being a currency in order to be a commodity. I don't see this restriction. I don't think it is up to you to decide if or what use a commodity is.

However, federal reserve notes are often considered commodities when traded against other currencies. I don't expect that if a currency trader, said he was a commodity trader that you would call him an idiot.

----

Two questions for you or anyone else:

Supposed someone told you his occupation was a "commodity trader" and you asked him what he traded. If he responded, I buy and sell widgets based upon their price fluctuations to the dollar.

Would you have to reserve judgement on whether he was "really" a commodity trader until you could learn more about widgets? Or are widgets obviously a commodity based upon context?

----

If I told you each bitcoin contained a public key, and that pubic key could verify the authenticity of any file signed by the owners secret private key. Would this give each bitcoin enough outside utility to be considered a commodity? How much non-currency value is enough to make something a commodity?

Of course you are correct. Playing with semantics isn't going to turn something into something it's not. I think my previous attempt at humour was simply expressing the deep sinking feeling that although we work for something that feels right, governments ultimately will not accept anything they cannot control, and if bitcoin becomes something which threatens them, they will find a law to create to destroy it. Just look at how quickly they have destroyed the freedom which once existed on the internet.

Red: Until I looked it up myself, I would have agreed with your commodity as a thing. But it is not. It is a process: "convenience, accommodation, profit, benefit, advantage,.." (see above).

These are THEIR terms. We will have to exist in today's legal environment, and use their legal language. Why not use it to our advantage?

That is our ace. Bitcoin is a process, just like their definition of commodity; it is not a thing. People can use it to trade things, and that is fine, but that is not Bitcoin's domain. See how simple this makes things?

Willsway: Defend how Bitcoin is a good and why that would be a desirable claim to make. You already understand that it is undesirable for Bitcoin to be an exchange, or a currency.

creighto: Their "little fiefdoms" can compel you to appear before their magistrates. I don't think you are prepared to deal with them.

Red: 'I really do stand by my definition, "If I can barter for it. It is a commodity."'

No. Commodity is the process that facilitates the barter. There is no "it". I think that answers your two questions.

Hope I haven't missed any important points.

fresno, your points are well taken.

However creighto pointed out that I tend to call people on their unsupported arguments. So supporting mine is a matter of saving face. :-)
If people feel my commodity assertion is supported well enough so I don't look like an idiot, then I'll promise not to assert it in public if doing so would have drawbacks to the community.

Everyday laymen don't get to decide the definition of a jargon word.  "commodity" is a jargon word used and defined by consensus within the finance and economic worlds.  Any looser use of the terms, inside or outside of these disciplines, is incorrect; regardless of whether or not the speaker is understood.


I know that doing this means I'm using an appeal to authority, but from Economist.com...

Commodity

A comparatively homogeneous product that can typically be bought in bulk. It usually refers to a raw material – oil, cotton, cocoa, silver – but can also describe a manufactured product used to make other things, for example, microchips used in personal computers. Commodities are often traded on commodity exchanges.


I'm not attempting to do so, and the same accusation can be leveled at yourself.  This is also borderline an attack upon the man, not the argument; something not done in polite circles.


Only as an abstraction, as all currencies ultimately are.  This makes it easier to think about on a day2day basis, but those professionals also know the differences.


I'm a bit more tactful than that, but I sure wouldn't trust him with my 401k until I was certain he was only using the term because the proles at the dinner party don't know the differences.


Again, currencies are an abstraction, and as such can easily *represent* an underlying commodity, or several.  Yet, sometimes the distinctions between the object of desire and the symbol are important.  Even though someone might say, "I just do this for the money."  They are both quickly imparting information and lying in  the strict sense.  No one *ever* does anything for the money.  The pursuit of money is never for the abstract symbol itself, but for what you can *get* for it later on.


It might if that were a common or intended use of a bitcoin, but not only is that not so, it's not even true that bitcoins contain anything at all.  To be precise, bitcoins are *themselves* an abstraction of currency ( a symbol of a symbol?) and no such object as a bitcoin actually exists, digitally or otherwise.  Your bitcoins are only a balance on a collective ledger, and a transfer is merely a notary upon that ledger that increases the balance of another account at the expense of one of your own at your direction.  So even if the bitcoin client program could be considered a commodity, which is another argument, the bitcoins themselves would still not be part of that.

I would argue that TIME is a resource and therefore bitcoins are nothing more than a store of TIME.In essence a hard commodity extracted through mining with proof that the mining took place.


Is time a resource equal to other resources?Untill Satoshi invented bitcoins there was no way to capture time and store it.

Red & creighto: Maybe we should define the definition of "definition" then. Mine comes from Black's Law Dictionary. Possibly you have a more accepted authority to quote from?

http://www.ithacahours.com/

That just becomes an appeal to authority.  Yes, there are better definitions of financial terms to be found than within a legal dictionary, but I'm not going down this rabbit hole.

No problem with an appeal to authority on definitions. I'm obviously not the definitive authority on the language.

But I'm not seeing what separates us, even from this definition. The green parts clearly fit bitcoin. Do you read the red part as absolutely excluding bitcoin?

I apologize for the tone here. It was flippant, but I didn't intend for it to be an ad hominem attack.

I was referring back to the previous thread where you said:


I really thought that was the main separator between us.

If that is not it, I'm really at a loss to know where I am failing?

----

This is by no means authoritative either, but I offer it as background in my use of the term commodity...

What drew me to bitcoin, was not the monetary policy. It was the promise of making anonymous transactions. Like many noobs, I presumed that there would exist serialized digital coin files, and that they would change hands in some verified fashion.

My first thought was, "Hey, I could use such coins as a proxy for verifying the ownership of other things! I didn't care about their monetary value. I just wanted a very cheap uniquely identifiable digital commodity." I was thinking about something like a transferable access key. I have the right to access something digital on the internet. I can sell that right to you anonymously. Now you can access that thing, and I can't. But no third party gets to know who you are.

It turns out the existing bitcoin implementation is not suitable for what I was considering, but I did see either 2 or 3 other people postulate the same type of proxy use for bitcoins.

So I started out thinking of bitcoins as a commodity not a currency. As others discussed bitcoin's properties it tended to re-enforced my views on its commodity characteristics.

Scarcity = Not generally a property of commonly used currencies. Often associated with commodities, especially gold.
Pre-fixed Quantity = No commonly used currencies I know of have this property. It is easy to point to limited edition commodities.
Dynamically Variable Value = In the two months since I came to this site, the value of bitcoin in dollars has risen 10 fold. That is not a property of any other common currency. It is a property of some commodities.
Trading on exchanges by competitive bidding = This is a property of many commodities. Most people don't acquire their everyday currency this way.
Use of the terms Buy and Sell Bitcoins = This means to buy bitcoins using a currency. Or sell bitcoins for a currency. That is the same pattern for commodities. People never seem to say, buy dollars or sell dollars in the same sentence with bitcoin.
Use of the term trade = People often say I'll trade web development for bitcoins. That is very commodity barter like. People rarely say I'll trade web development for dollars.

None of these are authoritative. But I found they reenforced my notion of bitcoin as a commodity.

But I'm willing to be persuaded I'm wrong. Fresno would prefer that.

You're describing a thing, I'm saying Bitcoin is a method, a convenience; a program.

COMMODITY. In the most comprehensive sense, convenience, accommodation, profit, benefit, advantage, interest, commodiousness. -Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition.

Sure, converting from one thing to another is useful, but that is for others to do. Bitcoin is the convenience that does it, nothing more.

To take on the other jobs is to also take on the other responsibilies. Bitcoin doesn't need to do that, and in order to stay vital, absolutely shouldn't!

Yes, Bitcoin IS a commodity, in the classic sense of the term; an accommodation. It should not claim to be the exchanger, nor the exchange, nor the thing exchanged. Why make things complicated?

The spirit of the thread asked what people thought. I listed what I thought and why.

I'm not intending to lobby for everyone calling bitcoin a commodity beyond acknowledging that bitcoin is an uncommon object that does have some characteristics of other things commonly thought of as commodities.

I'm perfectly happy with Liberty's veiw that on this site the word commodity should have economic semantics. Or your view that it should have legal semantics.

Until semantic consensus is reached, I'll use the language as I understand it.

Universal Dividend (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=796.0)
help! Bitcoin Article to be published, please review (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=756.0)
On hoarding (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75.0)
Remove economic nonsense from home page (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=793.0)
Zitcoins (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=808.0)
Lending at negative interest rates. (People like bigger numbers.) (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=670.0)
The economics of Bitcoin: How does it work? (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=382.0)
Bitcoin does NOT violate Mises' Regression Theorem (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583.0)
New exchange (Bitcoin Market) (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=20.0)
Calculating Bitcoin Value... (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98.0)
Deflation (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=539.0)
Pros and Cons of Anonymous Digital Cash (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67.0)
The MOST Important Change to Bitcoin (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=557.0)
Legal Tender (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=476.0)

By golly! Would you look at all these threads I just happened to run into again! :P

^_^   Be careful not to hurt yourself.

Is there a consensus on whether bitcoins are a commodity?

What about the three commonly used types of currency:

Commodity currency - silver coins
Representational currency - silver certificates
Fiat currency - Federal reserve notes

What type is bitcoin?
 

None of the above.  They are closest to a fiat, without the 'legal tender' part.

They are closest to a LETS system for the internet, if the entire online world can be considered it's own 'locality', but even that isn't accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Exchange_Trading_Systems

Bitcoin is something new in the realm of currencies, which is what was neccessary.

Thank you for the LETS analogy. I had not heard that term in it's originating context. I agree it makes a good point of reference. It seems to differ mostly in terms of "equivalence to the national currency" and "no interest".
 

I don't think it's much like LETS. The main difference being that with LETS you can go negative without even finding a lender. I believe the total number of credits is always zero. This is weak because people can get negative balances and stop using. Also afaik LETS always has a central bookkeeper. These are very large differences.

Can a currency be fiat without a central issuer? I really don't know. I also don't know if legal tender laws are a necessary or coincidental property of fiat. I think all fiat has had legal tender laws though. I mean if people are going to choose to use it without legal tender laws, then it must be a thing they want, which implies it's a commodity, right?

I say bitcoin is a commodity currency.

Indeed, there are notable differances, and I noted that it wasn't quite right to start with, but it's as close of an existing example that I could think of quickly.  As for central bookkeeping, that is what we have with the blockchain.  There does not need to be any actual script with LETS, either.  Nor is it a requirement that all credit balance to zero within a LETS, but zero sum bookkeeping is a commonly used method within the LETS style local currencies.  Bitcoin is *not* a zero sum system, but upon thinking about it further, I can still say that it's very LETS-like in structure and practice; and as such, we can expect the same kind of legal issues (and defenses) that previous LETS systems have faced.  It's a very good analogy, and a strong precendence to lean upon.  The main differences between other LETS-like local currencies and Bitcoin is that Bitcoin's local sphere of trade is the entire Internet, and not the physical world.  Any reach into the physical world only occurs as an extention by others, not neccesarily an intended use of the currency.  IANAL, but I think that this is something that we could lean upon legally speaking, but only if the bitcoin.org main page and FAQ were to allude to being a "LETS-like" online currency as an intent prior to any legal troubles.


A currency can be a fiat without a central issuer, but not likely without legal tender laws.  The very term 'fiat' implies it is a currency of the nation by a matter of law, as opposed to a naturally occuring currency such as gold coins.



It still doesn't matter what you say or don't say.  Bitcoin is not a commodity.  For that matter, neither is any LETS or LETS-like currency that exists or ever has existed. 

Silver coins are an example of commodity money. Commodity currency is the currency of a country which heavily relies on the exportation of some particular commodity.

This statement is not true.  A commodity based (backed) currency is such because it physicly is (or represents) a particular commodity of a defined metric.  The nature of foreign trade is irrelevent.

How does it differ from a LETS regarding the "no interest" condition?  How does bitcoin imply interest without a bitcoin banker?

Let me try once more. Then I will be silent on this subject forever. Maybe.

To label Bitcoin a currency incurs a liabiliy, and hostile governments and organizations will gleefully use such liabilities against us: To promote bitcoin as money, cash, dollars or their commercial equivalents is nothing less than suicide when we are found to be tweaking the noses of the financial industry.

"Mr. satoshi," (having been subpoenaed to participate in seven weeks of Senate procedings against illegal money launderers) "it says here on your program's website that your Bitcoin is a currency, does it not?"

"Mr. kiba," (on suicide watch in a neighboring cell) "in your letter to the EFF, you made the claim that xxx Bitcoins are worth xxx United States Dollars, did you not?"

Bitcoin is very close to being what could be considered sui generis, "of its own kind". We have the choice of defining it according to OUR purposes, or we can use the meathook-filled existing terminology of commerce. Do you understand the tremendous opportunity that this is?

Why piss it away? Why give the opposition just the things it needs to shut this project down? Why let them set a precedent that will deter others from trying anything like this ever again?

I've called Bitcoin a commodity earlier in this thread, and I've defended the term. It's a perfect term for us to use:

"COMMODITY. In the most comprehensive sense, convenience, accommodation, profit, benefit, advantage, interest, commodiousness."

This is the first definition, right out of the weasel's own playbook!

Okay, find another term if you like. But Bitcoin is a convenience. It is an accommodation. It is a benefit. Bitcoin is not money and it shouldn't try to be, nor is it a money exchange. Sure, there are exchanges that use Bitcoin for all sorts of trading, but they are not Bitcoin. That would be like comparing stores and shopping centers to the street that brings people to the stores: The street is common law, and it's ours by right. Bitcoin is a public utility in its own right that the government has no reasonable interest in controlling.

Think about it. If we factor 'Bitcoin the convenience' from 'Bitcoin the community's many uses', we will bring no commercial liability upon ourselves--because we are NOT IN COMMERCE!

There is a letter being written to the EFF, there is also an article being readied for publication. I think this issue needs to be considered before we go further in endorsing them.

I looked up some of the terms used by the guy who coined the concept and term. He would consider coin generation positive interest and transaction fees negative interest.

It doesn't matter what your or my opinion about it really is.  Bitcoin *is* a currency.  And to call it a commodity, which it is *not*, will offer any enemies more legal ammo than calling it what it is.  Calling it a commodity is *fraud*.


A wonderful definition.  It's also completely wrong.  I don't even care where this came from, it's wrong.

Hmm.  Yes, the transaction fees as 'negative interest' I can agree with; coin generation as positive interest is a bit tricker since it doesn't require that there be any positive account intended to draw the interest.

Regardless, I can see the logic and I think that I understand your point.

Compelling argument, creighto.

I'm assuming that this was a sarcastic response, since I didn't make an argument.  I didn't make any argument, because I considered such an effort futile.  I am starting from a given that you do not accept, and you will cling to your interpretation no matter what I come up with. 

I replied in this thread what i consider bitcoin to be

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=872.0 (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=872.0)

It is not currency,commodity or money of any kind.It is a tally system which was in use before the current monetary disaster we have now.It is a tally system not a coin,banknote,gold,silver,wampum,whales teeth or other currency.It is a tally system in as much as facebook dollars and linden dollars which are basically entries in a database to account for trading in goods.The difference with bitcoin is that it is a distributed rather than being owned by one website.

Don't use words to describe bitcoins that have special legalese meanings to them.We think they mean one thing but they actually mean something very different when read by lawyers.

Is "currency" a word to not use?

http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=bitcoin_vocabulary

Yes!

I think the analogy of a tally system is a good one. It can be used by the community to account for transactions, yet has no value itself. I think this is an important distinction to counter any future charges of running a "fraudulent money scheme". And you know that is going to happen.


"The term 'money' is synonymous with 'currency',.." People v. Miller, 292 IllApp 643, 11 NE2d 827. There is an impressively long list of court cites that say the same. I think it is a dangerous policy to imply that Bitcoin is currency, or money. And it is totally unnecessary. Why even go there?

Perhaps Satoshi should review this thread?  On main page:

Bitcoin P2P Cryptocurrency
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer network based digital currency.
Peer-to-peer (P2P) means that there is no central authority to issue new money or keep track of transactions.
Transfer money easily through the Internet, without having to trust middlemen.
The limited inflation of the Bitcoin system’s money supply is distributed evenly (by CPU power) throughout the network, not monopolized by the banks.

fresno, perhaps you would be kind enough to compile a list of 'banned' words for us?

Yesss!

Bitcoin is a program, running in a p2p network, plus continuing management and improvements. That is all. It is not money. Why would anyone make such a wild claim? (Sorry Satoshi!)

A case can be made that Bitcoin is intended for "illegal money laundering", and that case has been prejudiced by some ill-advised claims made on this website and elsewhere.

Let us correct this error now!

This is a silly way to play semantic games, and it is spamming too many otherwise interesting threads.

Fresno, the game is simple. Just start a new thread and in your post write your best description of bitcoin for the uninitiated. Feel free to not use any words you don't want to use. If new people understand bitcoin, then you win. If new people go WTF? you lose.

Or start a thread with campfire stories about boogie men. Then we can all try to out do each other with our stories of righteous indignation and a persecution by the man. 

Red: You seem a bit shallow. The answer to your question is:

"Bitcoin is a program, running in a p2p network, plus continuing management and improvements. That is all. It is not money."

You should be able the find it in the post just ahead of yours.

The rest of your post is disrespectful.

How?

Let me be the first to say WTF? Not because your definition is not accurate but because it is pointless.

Your description matches tcp/ip, http, smtp, kazaa, limewire, bittorrent, and just about anything that is not paypal. How on earth is that useful?

Elsewhere?  A direct link would be informative.  Or, is there a reason for secrecy?

They're far too numerous to list, starting with the name -- "Bitcoin" = "bit" + "coin".  It's a little late to be playing semantics, no?

You have a point. :)

No. I thought the description was just fine myself, and it WAS fine as far as descriptions go. But I soon realized 'Uh Oh'. It was loaded with landmines from a liability standpoint.

So, now that we are at that point, which is worse, to ignore reality, or to be a little late getting our act together?

"Bitcoin" is a coined word, with no previous definition (someone should check this), and can mean whatever we want it to mean. But calling the Bitcoin "cash" or "money" is inaccurate, and sticking it in the face of TPTB. Want to guess where the brave naysayers on this board will be when the SHTF?

mizerydearia: Start at the Bitcoin main page.

@fresno

I totally agree with your argument re liability.  There are many statements on this forum that stick it to TPTB.  If the community were to take your suggested route, it'd be best to nuke this forum, and start one that's heavily moderated to eliminate inappropriate comments.

As I've written here ad nauseam, I'm not interested in Bitcoin as a better PayPal that would be acceptable to TPTB.  I'm interested in Bitcoin as part of net-based monetary systems that could replace government-backed and -controlled fiat currencies.  It could serve as "cryptogold", supplementing physical gold etc.  In order to play such a role, Bitcoin will need to survive attacks by governments and others with massive resources.  It will need allies in the tradecraft communities.

It would be best to do that now before it grows much more.I havent heard satoshi's opinion yet either.

An option to flag/report certain posts or threads and send them to the legal team (if there is such a thing) might be a better option.Just having moderators could lead to political issues.Perhaps those well versed in legal issues could volunteer for the legal team.All items removed should still be available for viewing somewhere to ensure openness.

Everyone here is aware of the implications so it would only be prudent to put something in place.Then if something does happen in future it can be pointed to as evidence that something was done about the issue.Better that than knowing it and doing nothing.Google recently won the youtube case against content owners because they had a process in  place for reviewing infringing material.Now that it has been brought up there is no protection to claim ignorance.

We can make this into a healthy thing, without nuking the board and without rewriting history: We can discover the truth and change our ways openly.  Not a bad strategy, hey?

One complication: A responsibility has come up in my Real Life that will take me away until later next month. The things I'd like to change have been covered several times in my posts.

Bitcoin is simply a distributed system for keeping things straight. Nothing more. We have a healthy, growing community of traders and exchanges that will in their course do the things required to make a healthy Bitcoin economy.

I'll be checking in for the next couple of days, then not quite as often. Take care!

Come on, this is like taking the vowels out of the names of G_D. It is what it is regardless of what people say.

You're going to censor the board of references to bitcoin as money? So that later you can point to the fact that you tried to cover up the fact that it's a money? If it isn't a money, then just demonstrate that when you get hauled off. If you can't then showing where you tried to get everyone to hide the fact is not going to mean thing. If anything, you'll get conspiracy charges added. Good grief.

Good grief right back!

1. I never advocated censoring this board.
2. Your claim that Bitcoin is money is indefensible.
3. The rest of your statement is incoherent.

Somebody keep an eye on this guy while I'm gone.

It was I who suggested deleting this forum, and replacing it with a moderated one.  The core developers could clarify that Bitcoin was never intended to be anonymous, or to be used as money, but rather as a zero-overhead system for incentivising shared services (or whatever).

Although I wrote that somewhat sarcastically, I'm beginning to think that the clarification is accurate.  That's admittedly extreme.  However, it'd be foolish to forget the e-gold lesson.

What kind of attacks or risks does that involve for Bitcoin users?

Should there be concern that many homes will be raided by swat teams?

Perhaps in such cases it is good to have an offsite backup of wallet files so that current income aren't lost and can be transferred to other addresses in the case of hardware being stolen/seized?

You could have an application that monitors any changes to your wallet file and backs it up to the cloud .Something like carbonite which encrypts the files on the fly.I wonder if someone wants to build a dropbox plugin that does the job OR
You could use a program such as folderwatch http://majorgeeks.com/FolderWatch_d906.html (http://majorgeeks.com/FolderWatch_d906.html) which does the monitoring and use dropbox as the target for the backup.You could also install dropbox on a hidden remote computer attached to the internet and your wallet will  be synced automatically to it as well.


Folderwatch is $25 shareware but if you are concerned about your wallet it might be the best option for you.

I doubt that users would be raided, unless there were evidence of seriously-illegal activity.  Those who run exchanges etc. might be at risk, OTOH, either through involvement (however unintended) with crime, or merely for violating KYC etc, laws.  Some might receive hard-to-refuse invitations to snitch.  Google e-gold, for example.

Remember Waco? Did you ever learn the original charges? Unlicensed gun sales! Hell, everybody in Texas trades unlicensed guns! Do you know how they justified torching a church and shooting the people as they escaped the fire? They indicted the survivors with every law in the book, and kept the jurors in a room until they came up with convictions on some diddley-squat charge, so the Times could headline they were all guilty.

You obviously have not observed how the DOJ goes after the low-hanging fruit, burying some small-time fapper under a flurry of impressive claims, hammering hard until one of them sticks. The news services love this game, it gets them big attention. It's a very effective way to intimidate the populace.

Why invite this sort of thing in the first place? Bitcoin CAN BE STRUCTURED TO AVOID THESE SORT OF CHARGES. Why needlessly expose ourselves to charges of illegality and money laundering? Let's get our shit into one sock and do things the right way.

I'm buried in work right now and can't do much. I've outlined several times on this site what needs to be done. Let's do it.

Maybe Bitcoin could be restructured to avoid the ire of TPTB in the US, maybe it can't.  Yet, to do that would certainly introduce complexities that would reduce it's usefulness as a medium of exchange.  Nor can it be restructured to avoid the ire of TPTB in all nations.  Bitcoin is not intended to be used in any particular country.  I am opposed to the idea of attempting to adjust to the perceived threat of politics for any one person or region.  If you fear the reaper, don't walk through the high wheat.

These examples just show how TPTB will find a reason regardless of whether or not it's the real reason.  There are so many laws today that it is literally impossible for anyone, including lawyers, to know for certain that they have not broken any.  Statisticly speaking, the average adult, law abiding American violates some criminal statue every day just going through life.  If they wish to stop Bitcoin, they will find some reason to try, or they will make up a new one.

@fresno

Don't get me started on Ruby Ridge, Waco et alia.  And I love Lard  ;)  I act based on my principals and values, with due consideration of the risks.  However, I never assume that something is safe because it's "legal".  What's "legal" is open to interpretation, and may change at any time.

Ed and Elaine Brown..... :(

If voting worked it would be illegal.....

Bitcoin has intrinsic value = Commodity?

It's intrinsic value is the ownership of a mathematical solution key to a complex mathematical problem.  Other uses:  If extracted from the collective, it may be use to certify authenticity or use for encryption purposes.  It has intellectual property attached intrinsically.

Bitcoin is not representing anything of value (Not even a promise for repayment) = Not a currency?

A considerable amount of effort (complexity of problems solved to manufacture Bitcoin intellectual property) goes into producing Bitcoins (costs in CPU running time roughly equal to its intrinsic value - to counter act economic disparity which will cause opportunity profit for producing Bitcoins, bringing everything back into economic equilibrium) = Commodity?

Awareness of value is what ultimately gives it value,
what people are willing to put in to get a unit of bitcoin, be it time, fait money or labor.

Similarly applies to any commodity such as food, water, shelter, technology or any other commodity. Efforts put into creating/obtaining it and demand. So keeping it positive in the perceptions of people is a key to maintaining value in bitcoin.

yes in my own perception bitcoin is a commodity because it is process of exchanging by means of trading the bitcoin to another alt coins to gain profit in the crypto world.bitcoin is an  investment and there are many process to earn your investment, and one of them is trade your asset bitcoin in to block chain market value that why we called this process a commodity or bargaining, in this process we must buy less value and sell it the higher price bid.