seems like the same fundamental misunderstanding as the venus project people have. business to business barter could never take the place of money because it is necessary to have a heterogeneous unit of account inorder to have prices. Prices are necissary inorder to calculate profit and loss and inorder to account for opportunity costs. Calculating profit loss and opportunity costs is necessary in order to rationally allocate scarce resources and to communicate, in a useful way, the decentralized knowledge of individual market actors. Self issued credit is great, but it must be priced, and inorder to do this you need a widely understood unit of account.

so imagine trying to know how many shoes an elevator is worth, and how many elevators a mongoose is worth, and how many mongeese a cheeseburger is worth, with out using "money" as an intermediary step.

True. Therefore, in my analysis, if we want to create a fair and stable value unit, the best that can be achieved is to define a "universal Q" as a constant, accepting that this can only ever be an arbitrary approximation of an indefinite variety of "other choices".

 I have chosen to use the RICI basket of 37 world commodities as Q.
This is rational because the necessities of agriculture, mining and energy are part of most people's "other choices".

Example: "You can't buy this hot tub because we won't have money left for the fuel bill or groceries to feed the kids."

Thus,  ultimately all discretionary purchases are evaluated against necessary purchases, no mater how poor or rich one might be.

Therefore, my proposal is that Q should consist of necessary purchases of the global population, which is what the RICI is designed to be.

Once we define Q, the fixed basket of necessities, we can then define a new value unit as the US dollar value of that fixed basket which, of course, includes energy.

This basket is a constant, assuming quality consistency of the products in the basket.

It 's US dollar value is defined by futures contracts in markets all over the world. No matter what happens to the US dollar, the new value unit still buys the same basket of global necessities.

The US dollar can be translated into any other currency in established markets, and replaced if necessary. This can continue until there is no national currency left to define the new value unit against.

 By then, if it ever happened, the stable value in real goods of this new unit would be well established in peoples minds and would be, as always, just as individually subjective and variable as the $20 bill was, blowin' in the wind.

That is precisely what I have been working towards.

If it is elastic who decides to issue more?

The "borrower"?   If so, what stops me from borrowing the moon?

Can you summarise?  I am not very patient with long YouTube videos and gave up.

The only point I got was something about self issued debt. Not sure why anyone would agree to sell me a car on this basis.

Certainly, digital info can be altered, although there are reliable sources of digital information.

Regardless, it seems we are now all on the same page.  It doesn't "beg the question", it "raises the question".

Now that we've gotten past that, we can work on answering the question that has been raised. . .

Within U.S. case law, bitcoin is already considered "a money".  I suspect that it will only be a matter of time before a federal court determines that it is also "a currency".

I admit that may have been a little vague. The recent rises in prices have increased the value of my holdings and therefore allow me to buy things with smaller percentages of my holdings. It's substantially more convenient for me to buy certain things using Bitcoin versus USD, and because my buying power with Bitcoin has gone up I don't need to use as much of my total stash to buy, say, gifts for xmas.

I am no more "liable" for the misuse of the trust i sell than a gun shop owner is "liable" for the murders comitted with the handguns he sells.
I wish to learn if my business runs afoul of any extant forum rules, not to start a debate about my responsibility for some hypothetical wrongdoings of others.

You might be able to, but you'll get negative trust from me if you do (and maybe others as well).

I'm not sure of the forum rules on this one.

I've been rather happy to buy things with my finite amount of Bitcoins simply because of the deflation. I used them on the ride up at around 400$. I used them near the peak at 1200$. I used them at the bottom at about 500$. I used them yesterday at 700$.

Would I in a bear market? Possibly. It all depends on how much of my total wealth I'm expending to buy an album or seven. It has nothing to do where the price is going, but only where it is.

My 8$ and some change.

I have to strongly question the intelligence of the author of that article as well as yourself Moonshadow for perpetrating bullshit like this.

A currency that is deflationary IS NOT EQUAL TO a specific product or industry that experiences deflation in an otherwise inflationary currency. They are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT economic situations.

This is in no way an argument for a deflationary currency. It is asinine to think so.

'Currency is any agreed upon means of exchanges of goods and services, so you could have some small stones, as used in history, and if it’s accepted by a sufficiently large population, then that’s enough,'