It's only in the last decade or so that we've had the technology to allow everyone to self-publish a book. Similarly, we've only just reached the point where everyone (not just banks or bitcoin 'miners') can 'publish' their own money. In other words, your claim is baseless.


I've treated you with respect throughout, and you have responded with...? I have in fact started a new thread and hope you'll visit and continue the conversation on it. You're obviously intelligent, but (and I'm not saying this to wind you up) there seems to be something missing in you. I would very much like to inject a little 'human quality' into you.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1686288.0

HS

You haven't presented me with any, only unqualified assertions based on your belief in the "sanctity" of the global ledger. The global ledger seems to have attained the status of your own personal Jesus.


No you have not, because you do not see that it was never a technical issue in the first place. Trust is a concept and can only exist between human beings. You have allowed yourself to become dehumanised to the extent that you think trust can be reduced to algorithms and created by a computer. The real issue is the way all existing monetary systems create a picture of 'the other' as a debtor who must be 'charged', found 'guilty', and obliged to hand over a symbolic token of their 'guilt'. This automatically destroys trust by creating a false perception of the other as someone who is likely to 'rip you off'. Existing monetary systems set this up as a self-fulfilling prophecy by creating an illusion of monetary scarcity where none exists, and requiring everyone to do battle for these illusory tokens of exchange. The solution is to change the way we perceive money and transactions: not as a burden of debt handed over grudgingly but as a gift freely given. This is precisely why I have suggested that it is not what we put into Bitcoin (in terms of code) that matters but what we delete from it.


The above is just an argument from authority, the self-professed 'authority' being yourself. What you're really doing is dismissing my proposal for no other reason than that I haven't spent the last X years assisting you with your own solution. I repeat: you have yet to address any of the points made in my proposal.


That remains to be seen. It may or may not be the future of Bitcoin, but it's not the future.

HS

Hi. In what sense is Bitcoin or M-Pesa not software? Can you use Bitcoin or M-Pesa without software? At what point does software become a 'monetary system'? The mining simulation I referred to is also software, so is that also a 'monetary system'? If it is not currently a 'monetary system' then could it become a 'monetary system' simply by adding code to allow users of the software to exchange the virtual 'ores' they mine for themselves?

HS

What does Bitcoin actually do that other monetary systems do not do? For example, how would you explain Bitcoin to the millions of M-pesa users in Tanzania and Kenya. In what way would switching to Bitcoin better their situation, bearing in mind: a) the fact that many people do not have regular or reliable access to electricity and charge old mobile phones (held together with duct tape) from a central source, b) the cost of 'mining' bitcoin, and c) the fact that these people (and billions like them) will never, ever be able to afford to 'mine' so much as a single bitcoin?

With the above in mind, is there any fundamental difference between a 'bitcoin miner' and a bank?

Below is a link to a mining simulation. In what way does Bitcoin differ from this? In what way do the virtual 'coins' that are 'mined' by 'miners' differ from the virtual 'materials' that are 'mined' in this simulation?

http://store.steampowered.com/app/321660/

Is Bitcoin just a mining simulation? If it is just a mining simulation then why do we pretend that it is 'real'? Why do we pretend that virtual 'coins' are scarce when they very obviously are not? Why do we pretend that they even have to be 'mined' or 'earned' in any conventional sense? For example, if I were to tell you that the system requirements for playing the above mining simulation are a warehouse full of ASIC processors and vast quantities of electricity then what would you say? Wouldn't you say "That's completely nuts! You're charging me to 'mine' something that doesn't even exist! I can do that on my own PC or device!"

Elsewhere on this board, I've been informed that 'trust' or 'confidence' can only be established via the "sanctity of the global ledger." Do you agree with this? Or is it the case that 'trust' and 'confidence' are values that are built over time by human interaction? Will someone 'trust' or have 'confidence' in Bitcoin simply by being presented with mathematical 'proof of trust' in the form of an algorithm or a few lines of source code? Or will they say "Actually, I'd prefer to use the system and determine for myself whether I think it's trustworthy or not"?

"Bitcoin merely replicates the defects of existing monetary systems in pseudo-decentralised form". Do you agree with this statement? If not, why?

HS

What is the title of this thread? "DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?)". In what sense have I strayed from the primary topic of discussion? What is fiat if not monopoly money with familiar faces printed on it and issued as currency by decree? Use any Monopoly money recently, tempestb?


Still asking you to actually address the points raised in my proposal, but again you have nothing to offer but insults. It's funny on one level, yet desperately sad on another because we see the consequences of existing monetary systems each and every day. Bitcoin has nothing to offer but more of the same.

Trust or 'confidence' is not something that springs into being fully formed overnight. Can you engineer a solution to 'trust' or 'confidence'? You trust your parents, friends and wife/partner because that trust has been built over time, yet for me that trust has yet to be established. What do you think my reply would be if you were to present me with an algorithm or mathematical 'proof' that claimed to demonstrate that the people you trust are 'intrinsically' trustworthy? I would say "Thanks, but I'll think I'll interact with them myself and come to my own conclusion."

Bitcoin has been around for seven years now and has been well publicised, yet despite the "sanctity of the global ledger" only a small minority of the population are prepared to trust it. Why? Because trust is not something that can be established with an algorithm. People have to be informed, they have to be persuaded that the benefits of using the new system outweigh the perceived 'costs' of abandoning the existing system, and they have to use the new system and establish trust in their own minds.

Regardless of the "sanctity of the global ledger", there are hundreds of millions of people out there who will never want to use Bitcoin. Try explaining Bitcoin to the millions of M-Pesa users in Tanzania and Kenya. They will want to know how Bitcoin feeds their children and stops them dying of malaria, and you will be lost for an answer. Once they realise that they will never, ever be able to afford to actually 'mine' the currency they will lose interest. They will say to you: "Mzungu, this is just another rich white man's game and we are (literally) sick and tired of playing it." Why? Because Bitcoin does nothing for them that the existing M-pesa system doesn't already do, because Bitcoin is not a real alternative - merely a pseudo-decentralised duplication of existing monetary systems.

Do you have anything at all to offer the community except insults and statements presented as 'fact'? Or is that substantially it?

HS

Again, no actual attempt to address any of the points I've made, just more insults. I've no idea at all who this "us" you're referring to is. Is it you? Is it you and iamnotback? Are you speaking for yourself or do you presume to speak for everyone?

You say the illusion is "too weak" (again, you present nothing in support of this other than your own opinion) and you prefer a "strong" illusion whereby you pretend to scratch about in imaginary dirt in order to 'mine' imaginary bitcoin. Your system is just a mining simulator.



You're playing a game and pretending it's real.

HS

I can't believe I'm reading this. "Violate the sanctity of a global ledger"? You have made a religion of the global ledger and turned it into a digital virgin goddess that needs to be protected from the sexual attention of infidels. This probably explains why you seem to be incapable of debating an idea which doesn't already align with your own and have to resort to insults instead. What is the "global digital ledger"? Can you see it? taste it? touch it? smell it? hear it? It is a digital abstraction that exists only in the form of an electromagnetic charge. Where do you think this "global digital ledger" goes to when you switch off your PC at night? Does it depart to Mount Olympus to dine with the gods? Read your own words and think about what you are saying. You are literally pulling the wool over your own eyes.


No. If your bank balance reads £1245.45 then this is just a number prefixed with a symbol. I can create 1245.45 (debt free) by typing it on my keyboard - I just have in fact. There is no fundamental difference whatsoever between the two numbers. They are just information in electronic form. The number 1245.45 does not need to be earned or issued as debt. It can be created out of thin air and unimaginable quantities of these numbers are materialising out of thin air with each passing second.

HS

Nothing is being lent out. It is a simulated monetary system (just as Bitcoin is a simulated monetary system) and the 'limits' that Bitcoin (and other monetary systems) impose are completely artificial. No limits are required. Don't just say "it would fail dramatically" - tell me why in a way that does not merely pretend that the numbers we are talking about are actually real.


You say that, and yet under the existing imaginary system people are perfectly happy to exchange food or water or heating or cooling or medicine in return for a number displayed in their bank account - simply because they believe that number means something. Don't just make an unqualified assertion, i.e. "Your Imaginary system basically makes everyone wealthy, it is utter nonsense." Tell me why everyone can't be equally wealthy. Put this grasp of economics you claim to possess to work and tell me why my proposal would fail.


Quite the opposite. Why don't you go find a homeless person on the street and explain your "realistic concept of economics" to them?


Yet all existing monetary systems are also illusions. They are illusions that people have agreed upon and come to believe in. My proposal is also an illusion (just as Bitcoin is) and it is one that people could also decide to agree upon and come to believe in.

A bank triggers an algorithm, moves a number to your account, and tells you to spend the next X number of years paying that number back. Are you seriously suggesting that this isn't an example of stealing the only thing that really does have value - our time and energy?

HS

No, this is a complete misrepresentation. My proposal is for a decentralised currency that eliminates the need for banks (central or otherwise) but still relies on a free market system based on open competition. It's no more an example of 'communism' than Bitcoin itself. Have you ever heard of the open source movement at all? Doesn't its existence contradict your unqualified assertion that my proposal will result in the "end of all production and megadeath"? Hundreds of millions of people donate their time and energy freely each and every day. Are they 'communists'? Are you saying that people who love to design new buildings will stop designing new buildings? Are you saying that people who love using their hands to build or grow things will stop building or growing things? What on earth is the matter with you? Your hyperbole is so ridiculous that it really doesn't deserve a response at all.


Not at all. Marxism is a bit beyond the scope of this thread, but if you care to PM me then I'd be happy to discuss the subject.

HS

I agree only in the sense that what we call 'value' is an act of collective belief - an illusion. The problem that arises is this: over time, people come to think that merely believing that something has 'value' really does confer 'value' on that thing. When that happens, they tend to become obsessed with the concept of 'value' and the numbers/symbols that represent it. People are so accustomed to thinking in terms of protecting the 'value' they think they possess, and so concerned about 'losing' that illusory 'value', that they can only think in terms of what they stand to lose (nothing whatsoever with my system) rather than what they (and everyone else) stand to gain.


Are you 'the community'? Do you speak for it? Is the community forever closed to new ideas? Is the code Holy Writ to be worshipped and maintained as it is for all time? Has Bitcoin become a cult?


Are you saying that the global ledger is the solution and the only means by which confidence in a system can be established and maintained? Tell me why.


My proposal is publicly available to anyone who wishes to read it. Have you read it? I mean actually read it and thought about it, not just skimmed through it dismissively because it's not consistent with your existing belief system? As for my comments, if you do not like them then do not read them.

HS

No, nothing is being 'printed' and this is not mere semantics on my part.


Again, no. Bitcoin and all modern digitised monetary systems are merely simulations. There is no 'value', only the perception of 'value', which is itself a misperception based on the belief that things (and unreal digital abstractions of things) can become something more than what they are simply by an act of faith.


What is this 'credit' you're referring to? Is it any different from the credit people use all the time to purchase goods and services? What do you think you are doing when you use a credit or debit card to 'pay' for a product? You are simply moving a digital representation of a number from a digital abstraction called 'your account' to another digital abstraction associated with the business owner. There is nothing of real value or worth being transferred and yet business owners are perfectly happy to let you 'pay' in this manner. Why? Because of the perception/misperception that the number that appears in their bank account has 'value', primarily because it's prefixed with a symbol (£/$) that people associate with the term 'money'. What makes you think they would not be equally happy under my system? If a business owner receives 100 'credits' under the existing system and 100 'credits' under my system then what's the difference? The difference (and it's the only difference) lies in how those credits are generated: as a debt under the existing system, as a gift under my system.

How on earth do you think the existing debt based system came into existence? Do you think we all collectively woke up one morning and said "I think it would be a great idea to surrender control of the money supply to organisations called 'banks' and allow them to issue something called 'money' as a debt that we have to pay back?" If such a system did not exist today and you were asked to sanction its approval then what would you say? I submit that your response would be something along the lines of "f**k off, that's a scam", and yet here you are today using just such a system and accepting its illusion of 'value'. Why? Don't tell me it's because you don't have a choice, because you do have a choice. I'm giving you one right now.


How can a digital simulation of money become more illusory than it already is? Simulated money will always be an illusion, but because it is a simulation we do not have to accept the 'rules' coded into it as if they are the Ten Commandments. Instead, we can select the relevant sections of source code, hit the delete button, and start over.

HS

No, nothing is being 'printed' and this is not mere semantics on my part.


Again, no. See my comments here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16908409#msg16908409 Bitcoin and all modern digitised monetary systems are merely simulations. There is no 'value', only the perception of 'value', which is itself a misperception based on the belief that things (and unreal digital abstractions of things) can become something more than what they are simply by an act of faith.

You seem to be suggesting a return to some form of barter system. The point isn't to 'deinvent' the digital wheel but to reconceptualise it in a way that works to everyone's advantage.


What is this 'credit' you're referring to? That's not what I'm proposing. I'm proposing a truly decentralised currency which allows everyone to create money as they require it. It would operate much like a debit card system (but using mobile phones), with the exception that if you do not have sufficient 'funds' available to complete a transaction then those funds would automatically be created debt-free. This can be viewed as 'credit' only in the literal sense of the term, i.e. to 'give credit' to someone, to reward them. The difference (and it's the only difference) between existing monetary systems and my proposal lies in how money is created: as debt by centralised sources under existing systems, as a debt-free gift by individuals themselves under my system. The only logical approach to 'money' when 'money' has been reduced to a digital simulation is to stop pretending that it has to be earned or issued as debt. It does not follow from this that everything will grind to a halt and everyone will do nothing at all. Hundreds of millions of people volunteer their time everyday. Look at the open source movement - Bitcoin itself is an example. People are creative and will still want to come together and create. Think of what could be achieved technologically if we stopped pretending that simulated money is 'real' and 'scarce', and recognised that there's no limit to the number of digital abstractions of money that can be created within a simulated system.


How can a digital simulation of money become more illusory than it already is? Simulated money will always be an illusion, but because it is a simulation we do not have to accept the 'rules' coded into it as if they were the Ten Commandments. Instead, we can select the relevant sections of source code, hit the delete button, and start over.

HS

No, you have not read my proposal properly. If you read the PDF version then you'll see that I've questioned the need for 'bitcoin' to exist at all. Even so, in a system whereby everyone can perform the function currently performed by banks (i.e. creation of bank credit money with a push of a button) and bitcoin miners, the very concept of a 'double spend' becomes completely irrelevant. See my other comment: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140793.msg16896845#msg16896845

It is not, as you call it, a 'lie'. Rather, it is recognising that existing monetary systems (Bitcoin included) are illusions that serve the interest of a minority. The solution is to replace the existing illusion with an illusion that serves the interests of everybody.

This is what Bitcoin is:

"Those familiar with the work of Marshall McLuhan will no doubt already recognise that bankers are living in a rear-view mirror reality. They function as if they inhabit an 18th century world in which gold sovereigns must be pushed from one side of the ledger to the other in order to balance the financial Scales of Justice. In point of fact, the 'value' of these metallic tokens was as illusory as our digital tokens are today. The creation of money and the need to 'balance the books' is just a numbers game and there is no need to treat it as anything but."

"The concept of "rear-view mirrorism" refers to the way we think about (and thus perceive) modern technology in a way that relates to the technology that preceded it. In other words, we are looking at the digital world through the eyes of the old analogue world. Bitcoin itself is a prime example, i.e. by recreating the coin in virtual form Bitcoin has duplicated the 'rear-view mirror' perceptual error of the bankers described above. Bitcoin has reinvented the wheel in digital form, and a digital wheel is merely a symbol which, unlike the wheel itself, has no real-world application. Transferring bitcoin from one person to another has all the utility of handing a picture of oxygen to someone deprived of air. Bitcoin itself is like a simulation of goldfish in a bowl, a simulation which stipulates that a) the non-existent water needs to be oxygenated to prevent the fish asphyxiating, and b) that the fish themselves need to earn this non-existent oxygen. It does not need to be earned (or issued as a debt to be 'paid back') though. Why? Because it is merely a simulation."

Bitcoin (and all other modern monetary systems) is a digital simulation of money and nothing more. Pretending that it is real, and that the digital tokens we exchange have 'value' and that this 'value' needs to be protected against 'devaluation', is like sitting in front of Microsoft Flight Simulator pretending that you are flying a 'real' plane and pretending that it actually matters whether you fly your non-existent plane into a mountain.

HS

I believe we do have a solution that's worth working on. A PDF copy of my proposal can be downloaded here: https://cloud.gmx.com/ngcloud/external?guestToken=zIgHg-57Qz2JRn4BEgNA6Q&loginName=hugostone@gmx.com

See also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1678904.0 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140793.msg16885474#msg16885474

Regards,

HS

What is a 'bitcoin'? What does it mean to 'own' a bitcoin or any other form of virtual 'money'? The question came up elsewhere, so I'll post my reply here also.

This is taken from my proposal: "Those familiar with the work of Marshall McLuhan will no doubt already recognise that bankers are living in a rear-view mirror reality. They function as if they inhabit an 18th century world in which gold sovereigns must be pushed from one side of the ledger to the other in order to balance the financial Scales of Justice. In point of fact, the 'value' of these metallic tokens was as illusory as our digital tokens are today. The creation of money and the need to 'balance the books' is just a numbers game and there is no need to treat it as anything but."

The concept of "rear-view mirrorism" refers to the way we think about (and thus perceive) modern technology in a way that relates to the technology that preceded it. In other words, we are looking at the digital world through the eyes of the old analogue world. Bitcoin itself is a prime example, i.e. by recreating the gold sovereign in virtual form Bitcoin has duplicated the 'rear-view mirror' perceptual error of the bankers described above. Bitcoin has reinvented the wheel in digital form, and a digital wheel is merely a symbol which, unlike the wheel itself, has no real-world application. Transferring bitcoin from one person to another has all the utility of handing a picture of oxygen to someone deprived of air. Bitcoin itself is like a simulation of goldfish in a bowl, a simulation which stipulates that a) the non-existent water needs to be oxygenated to prevent the fish asphyxiating, and b) that the fish themselves need to earn this non-existent oxygen. It does not need to be earned (or issued as a debt to be 'paid back') though. Why? Because it is merely a simulation.

Take a look at the balance of your bank account. It's just a number. Do you 'own' that number? Do you have copyright on it? What does it mean to 'transfer' the number 50 from one account to another? Outside of our perception (or rather misperception) that it means something it actually means nothing at all. We pretend that bitcoin (or dollars/euros/yen, etc.) are real in the same way that I pretend I am using paper and ink to 'write' this comment.

The truth is that there are no 'coins', merely numbers transmitted and stored as a form of electromagnetic radiation. We are literally living in a simulation of money, and because it is a simulation we do not need to pretend that it is real. Rather, we can pretend it is real in another way, a way that benefits everyone.


HS

That's just another example of the numbers game though. Price, value, theorems, equations - they're just self-referential symbols. We have become 'numbed' by the 'numb-ers' game to the extent that we can't see past the numbers to the human considerations and needs the numbers represent.

Here's a scenario to think about: imagine you could create 'money' on demand as and when you need it. For example, you walk into a shop and pick up a carton of milk. Instead of being 'charged' to pay back an illusory 'debt' you are requested to make a donation (a gift of money) of 2 units of currency in return for the item. You then scan a QR code with your mobile phone and the 'money' (nothing more than a number) representing the gift is created (by you) and transferred to the recipient's account. Under such a system, price inflation becomes meaningless. Rather, we see that price inflation has always been meaningless and just a numbers game.

For example, next day you walk into the same shop and select the exact same item, only this time you are asked to make a donation (a gift of money) of 5 units of currency. Your 'spending power' has in no way been reduced because, once again, you simply need to scan the QR code, whereupon the 5 units are created and transferred to the recipient. Nothing of 'value' has been created or lost, just the illusion of it.

Under such a system, we would only need to pay attention to the numbers to the extent that they identify a real-world imbalance between supply and demand. Everyone (not just the rich) would have an equal opportunity to obtain what is available. If there is not enough to go around then the system permits the 'financial resources' required to address the imbalance to be created on demand. Also, because 'cost considerations' would no longer be a factor, the issue could be addressed using best practice, i.e. not merely paying lip service to ecological concerns.

If this sounds like madness to you then consider what happens when you walk into a bank and ask for a mortgage. The bank pushes a button, transfers a number to your account, then tells you that this number represents a 'debt' and that you must spend the next 20 years paying off that debt. Who would possibly accept such a system?

My system would be an illusion, just as the existing system is also an illusion. The difference is that my illusion works to everyone's advantage.

HS

Hi. OK, hitherto you've consistently claimed that there is an 'objective' quality to 'value', that something can be said to have "intrinsic value", and that this 'value' can be transferred as if it were a thing. As for me, I have consistently claimed the opposite and never at any time have I asserted that this was a new idea or that I 'invented' it. I did ask you some questions though, but you haven't answered them. The most important question is this: if 'value' is subjective and illusory then why do we permit a small subsection of the population to create 'value' in the form of 'money' and tell us that it exists as a 'debt' and needs to be 'earned'?

How do you conceptualise the 'value' of bitcoin? Do you think "Oh, one bitcoin is worth one bitcoin" or do you think "Oh, one bitcoin is worth X dollars/euro/pounds"? I suspect that you (and most others) think in terms of the latter rather than the former. There is no reason, however, why we should not think in terms of the former and stop pretending that these numbers mean something. Then we can dispense with the illusion that bitcoin need to be mined and existing currencies need to be issued by banks as debt. Virtual 'coins' can and should be created on demand as they are needed - we can literally make it up as we go along.

Here is my proposal: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1678904.0

HS

Hi. OK, let's go back to the round chunks of shiny metal. Do you accept that an inert metal is an inert metal and the mere fact that a group of people decide that an inert metal will serve as their 'currency' does not mysteriously transform that inert metal into something else? It remains, as it always was, just an inert metal does it not? It does not 'store' anything other than a perception and, in this sense, our perception that it 'stores' a mysterious quality called 'value' is actually a misperception whereby we literally attribute human values to a mere object. For example, if I were to melt down one of these round chunks of shiny metal and create an idol in the form of an animal, would that idol become a 'store' of something called 'divinity' if I began to worship it? If I were to melt down a large number of these round chunks of shiny metal and create lots of idols, would I be able to 'transfer' this 'divinity' to other people? Or would I simply be deluding myself and others?

There is no such thing as 'value', only the illusion of it. We are literally playing a numbers game and pretending that a self-referential symbol actually means something. A symbol is just a symbol though. Can you breathe a symbolic representation of air? Can you drink it? Can you do anything with it at all without pretending that it is something more than what it actually is?

Imagine that a global currency were to emerge and replace all existing currencies. What would the 'value' of that currency be in the absence of any other currency to establish equivalence? This gives the game away, doesn't it? The 'value' of one unit of currency would be equal to itself and mean nothing whatsoever.

If we stop pretending that things and digital abstractions have 'value' then we see the futility of pretending that they have to be issued as debt or earned in any conventional sense. Instead, we can pretend that they mean something else altogether and stop playing the numbers game. What I am saying is that we do not need others to delude us when we can delude ourselves in a way that benefits everyone, not just a minority. We do not need governments or banks or even bitcoin miners to create symbols on our behalf. We can create them ourselves.

HS

Hi. I think you're locked in a tautology. If "transactional utility is the price of money itself" then it can only be determined in relation to that which it prices itself by, i.e. its own unit of currency or an equivalent. Assume for a moment that this "transactional utility" amounts to one billion US dollars. What is the 'value' of one billion US dollars independent of the value of one US dollar? What is the 'value' of one US dollar? One and one billion are literally just numbers. They do not have any inherent value in and of themselves, and they certainly doesn't soak up a mysterious quality called 'value' just because we put a symbol in front of them.

You recognise what I'm saying here when you observe that gold coins "...are considered as money only as long as people consider and use them as money..." and if people do not then they are merely "round chunks of a shiny yellow metal". In point of fact, gold coins have always been nothing more or less than round chunks of a shiny yellow metal. Their fundamental 'quality' as round chunks of a shiny yellow metal is not altered by the fact that people prefer to lock them away in vaults rather than throw them into ditches or play tiddlywinks with them.

What I am saying is that what we think of as 'value' and 'price' is just a constantly fluctuating illusion. If we accept that it is an illusion then the question to be asked is why we permit other institutions to determine the nature of that illusion for us, rather than determine it for ourselves.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1678904.0

HS

Hi. First and foremost, modern money doesn't really exist at all, does it? It's just a number stored as a voltage on a suitable medium. Let me ask you this though: when the money markets determine the value of the dollar (or yen, euro, sterling, etc.) do they determine it on the basis of its "transactional utility"? What proportion of the 'value' of one dollar (or one bitcoin) represents its "transactional utility"? In other words, how is this "transactional utility" itself valued? Put a value on it for me.

What applies to the dollar, yen, euro or bitcoin must apply equally to all currencies. What is the value of the "transactional utility" of Zimbabwe's currency?

https://banknoteworld.com/shop/Zimbabwe-Currency/?gclid=CI2EjLKiq9ACFfIK0wodR88AKA

HS