|
Those are not units and neither is bitcoin. That is the fundamental flaw. Units are objectively definable and a constant.
Look at every unit.
One side of the equation is made up and the other side is real.
|
|
|
|
|
32 is fine, but I am only gonna sell to trusted members
|
|
|
|
|
Been dead for a long time. I am no longer buy and selling coins. I dont believe in the concept. It is a speculative bubble and isnt capable of replacing the currency monetary system, so it is of no interest to me.
These coins are not currency. They are digital collectibles. They are the online equivalent of baseball cards or post stamps.
|
|
|
|
To the value is subjective so it is okay that the unit of value is subjective crowd.
Value is subjective to the individual but objective to mankind.. I can say I dont value water because I am not thirsty, I can never say that mankind doesnt value water.
Further the measure of the subjective nature of value is called price!!!!
And price is measured by currency. And Bitcoin is currency. So what's the problem? You can't have an objective measure of value that is disconnected from price. It's just not possible. Gold is a joke. Fiat currencies are inherently flawed. The "accounting" profession is a total fraud. What else is there? Nothing. That's why we have Bitcoin. Like I said, in fifty years, price and value will likely converge in Bitcoin anyways. If you can come up with an "objective" measure of value between now and then, more power to you. Odds are you won't. It's a hard problem. So just accept that Bitcoin is a currency in the short term, and (hopefully) an objective measure of value in the long term. You will never get me to believe that you can have a system of measurement without a UNIT of measurement. Bitcoin IS the unit of measurement. It seems so unmoored only beause it's trying to measure something that is subjective, the value of products and services. The measurement system still requires the pricing mechanisim that a live trade market provides, and even that is only valid momentarily. No it isn't. The reason it is so unmoored is because it is not a unit. Units are a constant that are definable. It is unstable in the same way that measurement of length was before an inch was defined. Price is the representation of the change in subjective value, the currency is supposed to be the constant that it measured against. |
|
|
|
|
All units are arbitrarily defined. They are all just a matter of shared opinion. It is not a problem that bitcoin is arbitrarily defined the problem is that the definition isn't held constant. The definition is in flux like when an foot was measured with human feet.
|
|
|
|
fundamental flaw?
The fundamental flaw with bitcoin is that it is not a UNIT. Currency is 3 things. 1. a store of value 2. a medium of exchange 3. a UNIT of account Bitcoin is not currency because it is not a UNIT. Units are definable in objective terms and are a constant Bitcoin is not definable and is not a constant. Bitcoin has the same problem as the dollar since 1971. It cant be defined. This is crackpot gibberish you basically just pulled out of your ass. Umm, yeah. Right. Bitcoin isn't currency because, according to you, it "has the same problem as the dollar," since apparently the dollar isn't currency either according to your utterly idiotic made-up bullshit. Dick face, Open up your pee brain a little. Is currency a system of measurement? .... (yes) Are all systems of measurement dependent on a unit of measurement? .... (yes) Is bitcoin a UNIT? No none of the worlds "currencies" are. The gold that the central banks still hold is a UNIT. |
|
|
|
To the value is subjective so it is okay that the unit of value is subjective crowd.
Value is subjective to the individual but objective to mankind.. I can say I dont value water because I am not thirsty, I can never say that mankind doesnt value water.
Further the measure of the subjective nature of value is called price!!!!
And price is measured by currency. And Bitcoin is currency. So what's the problem? You can't have an objective measure of value that is disconnected from price. It's just not possible. Gold is a joke. Fiat currencies are inherently flawed. The "accounting" profession is a total fraud. What else is there? Nothing. That's why we have Bitcoin. Like I said, in fifty years, price and value will likely converge in Bitcoin anyways. If you can come up with an "objective" measure of value between now and then, more power to you. Odds are you won't. It's a hard problem. So just accept that Bitcoin is a currency in the short term, and (hopefully) an objective measure of value in the long term. You will never get me to believe that you can have a system of measurement without a UNIT of measurement. You can believe a lie if you like. The whole world has been believing a lie for the last 40+ years, but that is coming to an end. Reality is the ultimate regulator. People can go a long time ignoring reality like when we believed the world was flat, but reality always wins out in the end. |
|
|
|
fundamental flaw?
The fundamental flaw with bitcoin is that it is not a UNIT. Currency is 3 things. 1. a store of value 2. a medium of exchange 3. a UNIT of account Bitcoin is not currency because it is not a UNIT. Units are definable in objective terms and are a constant Bitcoin is not definable and is not a constant. Bitcoin has the same problem as the dollar since 1971. It cant be defined. For bitcoin to become currency it has to be defined and the limit has to be removed. The amount of bitcoin would then have to change in relation to demand for it to keep the definition true. Yeah.....see, your myopic focus on this unit pedantry doesn't make sense in your other threads either. What about bitcoin lacks units? Just because the unit is defined at the protocol layer in binary...is that what's annoying you here? The inherent abstractness of digital assets? You're kinda sounding like an old-school gold bug who can't get his head around something non-physically-tangible... Edit: Ugh...I can't believe I bumped this thread! Says to self: "Don't feed the trolls....don't feed the trolls..." What is that definition? What is objectively equal too? It is not that it is not tangible. We have units of electricity and they are not tangible. The problem is it is not definable. |
|
|
|
fundamental flaw?
The fundamental flaw with bitcoin is that it is not a UNIT. Currency is 3 things. 1. a store of value 2. a medium of exchange 3. a UNIT of account Bitcoin is not currency because it is not a UNIT. Units are definable in objective terms and are a constant Bitcoin is not definable and is not a constant. Bitcoin has the same problem as the dollar since 1971. It cant be defined. For bitcoin to become currency it has to be defined and the limit has to be removed. The amount of bitcoin would then have to change in relation to demand for it to keep the definition true. |
|
|
|
|
I agree it is a sham. Bitcoin is not currency it is a speculative bubble.
|
|
|
|
|
To the value is subjective so it is okay that the unit of value is subjective crowd.
Value is subjective to the individual but objective to mankind.. I can say I dont value water because I am not thirsty, I can never say that mankind doesnt value water.
Further the measure of the subjective nature of value is called price!!!!
This happens in other systems of measurement too.
Imagine you weight a bowling ball on earth and it weighs 10 pounds then you weigh the same ball on the moon and it is 2 pounds. The pound didnt change, human perception changed. We could say that the ball weighed 10 earth pounds or 10 moon pounds but we dont. We represent the change in perception with a qualifier. The ball weighs 10 pounds on earth, earth being the qualifier or the ball weighs 2 pounds on the moon, the moon is the qualifier.
We could do the same thing with currency we could say water is worth 10 units of desert currency or it is worth 1 unit of beach currency, but we dont.
We use price as the qualifier to represent the change in human perspective!
People say that gold and silver are not a constant because their value measured against other items changes. It is not the UNIT that changes it is human perspective.
|
|
|
|
First, I dont want this to be true but it is.
Currency is a unit.
It is a unit in the system of measurement of value. Just like an inch is a unit in the system of measurement for length.
Units (and there have been thousands of different ones) all have 2 things in common.
1- They are not real. They are all made up, everyone of them is just an opinion. Inch, pound, meter, cat 5, g force,currency --- not real.
the are all just an opinion that we chose to share. We all share the opinion that an inch is so long, if we all shared the opinion that an inch was a foot then it would be.
2- All units are equal to a constant.
Bitcoin is not a currency because it is not a unit. It has to be definable it has to be equal to something. An inch is not real but it is definable.
Hi, did you call into free talk live maybe last week? Yes that was me! |
|
|
|
And that's why we have Bitcoin. A Bitcoin is a unit of measurement. It represents approximately 1/21,000,000th of the Bitcoin economy. It is arguably the best economic measurement ever devised. That doesn't mean it's perfect. The Bitcoin economy isn't exactly easy to define. We could imagine ways to come up with a better unit. We know what it would generally look like. But it's beyond our capabilities at the moment. And in fifty years the difference between Bitcoin and a perfect unit of economic measurement would likely be minimal anyways. Regardless, if you're going to make this huge semantic argument, it would help to start out using the correct definitions of words to begin with. Currency is not synonymous with money. Saying that someone needs to make a currency representing to a Joule or whatever is simply ridiculous nonsense. Here's one. Try using it as currency. Don't like it? What do you think would work better? Is the petrodollar really such a distant memory? How well did that turn out? Now, if you want to argue that Bitcoin isn't *money*, or that Bitcoin is a poor investment, because it doesn't have guaranteed future value, fine. Many here would even agree with that. I'm sure it would be an interesting conversation. But arguing that Bitcoin isn't "currency" because it isn't a "system of measurement," when no system of measurement coming anywhere *close* to Bitcoin has ever even been espoused, let alone devised, and when that isn't even the definition of "currency" anyways, is just confusion. Quote from: Holliday on October 25, 2013, 02:29:49 PM cur·ren·cy noun \ˈkər-ən(t)-sē, ˈkə-rən(t)-\ : the money that a country uses : a specific kind of money : something that is used as money : the quality or state of being used or accepted by many people plural cur·ren·cies Full Definition of CURRENCY 1 a : circulation as a medium of exchange b : general use, acceptance, or prevalence <a story gaining currency> c : the quality or state of being current : currentness 2 a : something (as coins, treasury notes, and banknotes) that is in circulation as a medium of exchange b : paper money in circulation c : a common article for bartering d : a medium of verbal or intellectual expression So currency is money. Very good now we have to define money. Money = The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value So money is a unit. Now we need to define unit. u·nit ˈyo͞onit/Submit noun 1. an individual thing or person regarded as single and complete but which can also form an individual component of a larger or more complex whole. "the family unit" synonyms: component, element, building block, constituent; More a device that has a specified function, esp. one forming part of a complex mechanism. "the gearbox and transmission unit" a piece of furniture or equipment for fitting with others like it or made of complementary parts. "a sink unit" a self-contained section of accommodations in a larger building or group of buildings. "one- and two-bedroom units" a part of an institution such as a hospital having a special function. "the intensive care unit" a subdivision of a larger military grouping. "he returned to Germany with his unit" synonyms: detachment, contingent, division, company, squadron, corps, regiment, brigade, platoon, battalion; More an amount of educational instruction, typically determined by the number of hours spent in class. "students take three compulsory core units" an item manufactured. "unit cost" a police car. "he eased into his unit and flicked the siren on" 2. a quantity chosen as a standard in terms of which other quantities may be expressed. "a unit of measurement" synonyms: quantity, measure, denomination More 3. the number one. the digit before the decimal point in decimal notation, representing an integer less than ten. Origin More late 16th cent. (as a mathematical term): from Latin unus, probably suggested by digit. Translate unit to Use over time for: unit |
|
|
|
The OP makes the mistake of assuming that, since currencies have historically been backed by physical objects, and since they have usually been defined in terms of some constant measure of these objects, that "currency" inherently means "unit".
That's not even remotely the case.
Currency means "current value". Currencies have current value, not because they are backed by some unit of objective backing, but because they circulate (like a current!) as a medium of exchange.
And this is simple to prove. Look at any unbacked fiat currency in existence today. Is it defined by an objective "unit"? No, of course not. A Federal Reserve note "dollar" is not an ounce of silver. It's not 1/35th an ounce of gold. It's not backed by anything whatsoever. Yet it still has currency because it circulates as a medium of exchange!
So, yeah, in terms of some poorly-worded regulations aimed at preventing the fraudulent issuance of money without the advertised backing, Bitcoin is not a "currency". Bitcoin is clearly not backed by anything. And no one has ever claimed otherwise.
But, in terms of the actual definition of currency, namely current value based on circulation as a medium of exchange, Bitcoin clearly is a currency.
Either currency is a system of measurement or it is not. All systems of measurements require a unit of measurement. It is a problem that the dollar is not a true unit and is not an accurate measure of value. It is to the citizens and foreign debt holders disadvantage that the measurement of value is done with a yard stick that changes length. We have been living 4 decades with a lie, It wont last much longer. |
|
|
|
Do you see your equation?
1 bitcoin = 1 bitcoin is like saying this
1 inch = 1 inch
1 pound = 1 pound
1 byte = 1 byte.
That is not how units work! The are all equal to something that is objectively real.
If that is sound reasoning I must be fucked in the head.
I'm currently in my third year of a Chemistry-Physics degree, so I'm actually quite familiar with units. Don't worry, you're not fucked in the head, your reasoning is just slightly off. Let me give you an example of a time when we made a change to our definition of a very common unit: The metre, a well know unit of measurement, was once defined by a standard platinum bar. The bar was created to act as the universally agreed upon definition of 1 metre, and was therefore by definition exactly one metre long. This was consistent to within a certain degree, but of course changes in e.g. temperature/pressure could in fact cause the length to vary slightly. Parameters were introduced to improve the consistency (specific temperature and pressure at which the length of the bar would considered to be exactly one metre) but unfortunately, using a physical object to act as a benchmark can never be as accurate as the scientific community would like. It was therefore decided that we should redefine the metre, without using a physical object. Einstein had shown, in his theory of relativity, that the speed of light is in fact a universal constant when measured within the same medium. It therefore made sense to redefine the metre in terms of this unchanging physical constant. Our definition of the metre is now 'The length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second' Your idea that units must be 'equal to something that is objectively real', while it may seem somewhat intuitive, is actually a slight misunderstanding. The fact that it is so difficult to find consistency in objective reality is what makes the task of measuring things so tricky. Back to Bitcoin: Bitcoin is actually a great starting point if we want to define a system of measurement for value. What we are effectively doing is defining a standard unit of value, i.e. 1 bitcoin, which can act as a universal constant similar to the speed of light in the example above. Now we have our benchmark (which doesn't fluctuate due to changes in temperature/pressure etc.), and we can start to decide how to value everything else in comparison to it. (notice that making measurements always boils down to making comparisons between things) Of course, being so new, and being introduced to a society who are so used to valuing things in a different way (namely whichever fiat currency they grew up with), make things more complicated (as well as a million other things, economics can't really be compared with science due to the numerous factors to consider, but we're talking about units here). We are still in price discovery phase with people having to shift their perspectives and adjust. It is yet to be seen whether or not the population as a whole will accept this new measurement system. The problem of making measurements and defining units is and always had been at the heart of the scientific discipline. Its an interesting subject, and there's a great deal of understanding to be gained by studying it in a bit more depth. This. Bitcoin is a proposal for a unit that anyone can use. If it is adopted as a transactional currency, it will become a unit by which things are measured. Notice in the above example the unit remained something objectively real. Because you cant measure an opinion with an opinion. How is one unit of account in the Bitcoin blockchain ledger--a value measurable and calculable, mind you--any less objectively real than "the distance light travels in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second in a vacuum?" Because whether a human perceives it or not a ray of light travels that distance through a vacuum. The blockchain doesn't really exist without human perception it is not objectively real it doesnt exist without us, it is a concept of man. |
|
|
|
Do you see your equation?
1 bitcoin = 1 bitcoin is like saying this
1 inch = 1 inch
1 pound = 1 pound
1 byte = 1 byte.
That is not how units work! The are all equal to something that is objectively real.
If that is sound reasoning I must be fucked in the head.
I'm currently in my third year of a Chemistry-Physics degree, so I'm actually quite familiar with units. Don't worry, you're not fucked in the head, your reasoning is just slightly off. Let me give you an example of a time when we made a change to our definition of a very common unit: The metre, a well know unit of measurement, was once defined by a standard platinum bar. The bar was created to act as the universally agreed upon definition of 1 metre, and was therefore by definition exactly one metre long. This was consistent to within a certain degree, but of course changes in e.g. temperature/pressure could in fact cause the length to vary slightly. Parameters were introduced to improve the consistency (specific temperature and pressure at which the length of the bar would considered to be exactly one metre) but unfortunately, using a physical object to act as a benchmark can never be as accurate as the scientific community would like. It was therefore decided that we should redefine the metre, without using a physical object. Einstein had shown, in his theory of relativity, that the speed of light is in fact a universal constant when measured within the same medium. It therefore made sense to redefine the metre in terms of this unchanging physical constant. Our definition of the metre is now 'The length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second' Your idea that units must be 'equal to something that is objectively real', while it may seem somewhat intuitive, is actually a slight misunderstanding. The fact that it is so difficult to find consistency in objective reality is what makes the task of measuring things so tricky. Back to Bitcoin: Bitcoin is actually a great starting point if we want to define a system of measurement for value. What we are effectively doing is defining a standard unit of value, i.e. 1 bitcoin, which can act as a universal constant similar to the speed of light in the example above. Now we have our benchmark (which doesn't fluctuate due to changes in temperature/pressure etc.), and we can start to decide how to value everything else in comparison to it. (notice that making measurements always boils down to making comparisons between things) Of course, being so new, and being introduced to a society who are so used to valuing things in a different way (namely whichever fiat currency they grew up with), make things more complicated (as well as a million other things, economics can't really be compared with science due to the numerous factors to consider, but we're talking about units here). We are still in price discovery phase with people having to shift their perspectives and adjust. It is yet to be seen whether or not the population as a whole will accept this new measurement system. The problem of making measurements and defining units is and always had been at the heart of the scientific discipline. Its an interesting subject, and there's a great deal of understanding to be gained by studying it in a bit more depth. This. Bitcoin is a proposal for a unit that anyone can use. If it is adopted as a transactional currency, it will become a unit by which things are measured. Notice in the above example the unit remained something objectively real. Because you cant measure an opinion with an opinion. |
|
|
|
First, I dont want this to be true but it is.
Currency is a unit.
It is a unit in the system of measurement of value. Just like an inch is a unit in the system of measurement for length.
Units (and there have been thousands of different ones) all have 2 things in common.
1- They are not real. They are all made up, everyone of them is just an opinion. Inch, pound, meter, cat 5, g force,currency --- not real.
the are all just an opinion that we chose to share. We all share the opinion that an inch is so long, if we all shared the opinion that an inch was a foot then it would be.
2- All units are equal to a constant.
Bitcoin is not a currency because it is not a unit. It has to be definable it has to be equal to something. An inch is not real but it is definable.
Hello! I think you might find it interesting to look into the history of measurements. We have had all kinds of units over the millennia, and our system of units is constantly evolving. Even the SI units which are now used as the common standard in scientific measurements are subject to change. So you may find that some of the things we currently rely on as 'units' don't actually fit your definition of 'unit'. Value is probably one of the more complicated things to assign a fixed unit to, because it is so subjective. But I think you're wrong about Bitcoin not being a unit. We have a fixed supply of 21 million Bitcoins. 1 Bitcoin remains constant (i.e. 1 BTC will always = 1 BTC) - its up to us to decide how much we value it. +1 for the soundest reasoning to date on this thread. Have a cookie! Do you see your equation? 1 bitcoin = 1 bitcoin is like saying this 1 inch = 1 inch 1 pound = 1 pound 1 byte = 1 byte. That is not how units work! They are all equal to something that is objectively real. If that is sound reasoning I must be fucked in the head. |
|
|
|
Even if true it wouldn't be any different from fluctuating fiat currencies. They will all go digital as seen in Canada with MintChip. Even a currency backed by gold that has a supposed "intrinsic value" still doesn't have a fixed value. If the number of gold discoveries go down or new uses for gold are found the value of the currency will change. Furthermore currency is intended as a medium of exchange, and Bitcoin fulfills this purpose.
It is fixed a unit. Gold is always gold. It is human perspective that changes. But yes you are right, the value changes with human perspective. Price is the representation of the change in perspective. It is like this. Imagine that we measure the weight of a bowling ball here or earth and it weighs 10 pounds. Then we measure the same bowling ball on the surface of the moon and it now weighs 2 pounds. The value changes but the unit stays the same. A pound is a pound. It is human perspective that changes. The representation of the change in human perspective is price. The unit is the constant. The value is what changes with perspective (i.e a unit of gold might be worth a 100 gallons of water next to a lake, but only worth 1 gallon of water in the desert)... Do you see how the number changes with human perspective but the unit stays the same? I never said it wasnt a medium of exchange.. it is. So is a baseball card. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
