|
643
|
Other / Meta / Re: Marketplace trust
|
on: November 10, 2013, 04:34:01 AM
|
You have unusual trust settings, or that was only temporary. sublime5447 is not in the default trust network.
Why is that, I might ask?  No vip status?  . I dont blame you for the TF incident but seriously default trust is BS. |
|
|
|
|
646
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Why bitcoin isn't currency.
|
on: November 10, 2013, 04:16:25 AM
|
You keep wanting to claim that currency is a unit.
I dont claim that. Now you're just trolling. Currency is a unit.
What I am saying is I didnt define currency. |
|
|
|
|
647
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Biggest misconception in Bitcoin
|
on: November 09, 2013, 03:40:56 PM
|
Bitcoin: store of value.  Yes store of value and medium of exchange just like a baseball card. Except more durable, more fungible, more divisible, more easily transportable, harder to counterfeit... Stop calling it currency  ? Because if you can realize that bitcoin is not currency because it is not a UNIT then you can realize that the US dollar is not currency because it is not a UNIT. That is what Ron Paul is really asking Ben when he asks can you define a dollar for me. He is really asking what is the UNIT called a dollar equal to? Okay Einstein, why don't you enlighten us and give us an example of something that is a currency? bytes, kilowatts, the dollar in 1970,oil, metals they can all be currency. Because they all can be mediums of exchange, stores of value, and a UNIT of account. |
|
|
|
|
648
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Why bitcoin isn't currency.
|
on: November 09, 2013, 03:25:18 PM
|
The Merchant's Magazine and Commercial Review, 1864: A promise to pay may represent coin, and circulate as such. It is properly designated as currency, and is one of many modes by which the use of an expensive standard may be spared by the substitution, as a medium of exchange, of public or private credit. http://books.google.com/books?id=8IsoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA394There, 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 via complete disconnect from any objective standard of value. The coin is the UNIT. It doesnt say avoidance it say substitution |
|
|
|
|
649
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Why bitcoin isn't currency.
|
on: November 09, 2013, 03:22:04 PM
|
Currency has been an objective UNIT most of human history.
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? COIN, n. Pieces of gold, silver, or other metal, fashioned into a prescribed shape, weight, and degree of fineness, and stamped, by authority of government, with certain marks and devices, and put into circulation as money at a fixed value, Com. v. Gallagher, 16 Gray, Mass., 240; Latham v. U.S., 1 Ct.Cl. 150; Borie v. Trott, 5 Phila., Pa., 403 Furthermore, coin, money, and currency at least (of the terms you listed) each have distinct definitions that pre-date any US government: (emphasis mine) Strictly speaking, coin differs from money, as the species differs from the genus. Money is any matter, whether metal, paper, beads, shells, etc., which has currency as a medium in commerce. Coin is a particular species, always made of metal, and struck according to a certain process called "coinage." Wharton. Coin is just one type of money. Money is that which has currency. Currency is current value. Pop Tarts constitute currency in some places. There is absolutely no reason not to refer to Bitcoins as currency. . 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. 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! |
|
|
|
|
651
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Biggest misconception in Bitcoin
|
on: November 09, 2013, 04:41:30 AM
|
you brought this up before and it was as pointless then as it is now...
Does it really matter what word you use to describe it, whether you call it money, a currency, a commodity, a technology? Who cares whether it is a 'unit' of something or not? That has nothing to do with the actual function that bitcoin provides and you are basically just starting a pedantic argument over an insignificant semantic issue.
Also, whether the word 'currency' is correct or not is hardly the misconception of the century and I think there are far more significant misconceptions you could concern yourself over (such as the misconception that Bitcoin can easily be shut down, etc.)
It is hugely important. It causes asset price inflation and distortion of the global economy. http://howestreet.com/2012/12/wake-up-investors-money-is-imaginary/ |
|
|
|
|
652
|
Economy / Economics / Value is subjective to the individual but objective to the market.
|
on: November 09, 2013, 04:38:10 AM
|
|
From the Mises institute
"With subjective preferences, there is no "measurement" going on. Modern economics can explain consumer behavior without assuming any underlying units of "utility." We only need to assume that people know how to rank units of goods in order from most to least preferred.
But when we switched from individual, subjective valuation to the market's objective valuation, things were different. Jill was no longer reporting on her personal taste, but rather on her estimate of what prices she could fetch if she sold the two items. The prices are denominated in money, which can be expressed in cardinal units. In that sense, money prices measure market exchange value."
|
|
|
|
|
653
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Why bitcoin isn't currency.
|
on: November 09, 2013, 03:18:17 AM
|
Currency has been an objective UNIT most of human history.
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? |
|
|
|
|
654
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Biggest misconception in Bitcoin
|
on: November 09, 2013, 03:09:15 AM
|
how about we call it by what it is? a quasi currency. it would be silly to buy a beer with gold, but it definitely wouldn't be silly to buy a beer with BTC.
I can go with that, a quasi currency like the dollar. I disagree with beer for gold being silly. |
|
|
|
|
655
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Biggest misconception in Bitcoin
|
on: November 09, 2013, 03:03:06 AM
|
What's it matter, anyway?
Because if you can realize that bitcoin is not currency because it is not a UNIT then you can realize that the US dollar is not currency because it is not a UNIT. That is what Ron Paul is really asking Ben when he asks can you define a dollar for me. He is really asking what is the UNIT called a dollar equal too? So, based on the Ron Paul reference, I assume you're making some political argument? Comparing it to the US dollar and saying that isn't currency either doesn't provide me any more information about why it matters whether or not bitcoin is a currency (though I guess it does eliminate a lot of potential reasons - you're obviously not using the term "currency" in any standard sense). Anyway, now that I see where you're coming from given that you say the US dollar is not a UNIT... Unit's are definable in objective terms and are a constant. Bitcoin is not a UNIT so it is not a UNIT of account. How are bitcoins not definable in objective terms (the satoshi client) and constant (there are 21 million of them, of which ~12 million have been discovered). Bitcoins are just as constant as gold. Moreso, in fact, if you count nuclear transmutation. Is that what the Ron Paul reference was getting at? You think gold is a currency and a unit but dollar bills and bitcoins aren't? You cant define things in terms of themselves. When you say bitcoin is x about of satoshi it is like defining an inch as a millionth of an inch |
|
|
|
|
657
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Biggest misconception in Bitcoin
|
on: November 09, 2013, 02:56:20 AM
|
Nintendo games were not a good store of value either, but wait another 100 years and see how much people are willing to pay for a contra game.
It's hard to talk to someone who is intentionally all over the place. People collect things for nostalgia reasons. Or because it was made better in the past. Or because a famous person used it. Bitcoins are not collector's items.The owner of the second largest soon to be the largest exchange would disagree. |
|
|
|
|
658
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Biggest misconception in Bitcoin
|
on: November 09, 2013, 02:53:07 AM
|
Nintendo games were not a good store of value either, but wait another 100 years and see how much people are willing to pay for a contra game.
It's hard to talk to someone who is intentionally all over the place. People collect things for nostalgia reasons. Or because it was made better in the past. Or because a famous person used it. Bitcoins are not collector's items. Fine call them assets.. I dont care what you call them.. The point is they are not currency. |
|
|
|
|
660
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Biggest misconception in Bitcoin
|
on: November 09, 2013, 02:44:07 AM
|
A cell phone is a store of value, but every tech is guaranteed to fall in the wake of a new better tech.
A cell phone is not a store of value... quite the opposite, it starts losing value the moment it is created. I didnt say it was a good store of value. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
