Bitcoin is not real money.

[Atlas]

I log into Wikipedia and find that somebody deleted most of the article. What do I find as a reason?

Reason: Most of this is not true. Bitcoin is not real money. It's toy money, etc.

What gives people the idea that Bitcoin is play money when it trades at over $10 a unit? Why can't people see it as real or are threatened by the idea of it being real?

What do you tell someone who says "Bitcoin is not real money."?

[1714030654]

1714030654

[1714030654]

1714030654

[1714030654]

1714030654

[1714030654]

1714030654

[1714030654]

1714030654

[DeathAndTaxes]

I would ask

a) what makes something real money?  When they give you a tortured definition I would name things which fail to fit that definition.  foreign currency, gold, silver, silver reserve notes, digital "dollars" (like value in a bank account).

b) does it matter?  For the sake of the argument pretend Bitcoin IS PLAY money.  If I can exchange this "play money" for both USD (or other "real" money) and goods/services is there any value in the definition of real vs play.

If they still don't get it ... well they don't want to get it.   They will get it in 15-20 years when their favorite celebrity is talking about how Bitcoin is the "IN" thing.

[thebaron]

The only real criticism is that it cannot currently be exchanged as easily for other currencies around the world.

If someone uses the "because it's electronic" argument, they are stupid. Nobody thinks twice about a debit card as being real money.

[casascius]

What do you tell someone who says "Bitcoin is not real money."?

You mean somebody on the internet with a random IP who wandered onto Wikipedia where anyone can edit so anyone did?

You tell them they're WRONG. http://xkcd.com/386/

[odolvlobo]

Articles on Wikipedia are defaced all the time, and it does not seem unusual that the article on Bitcoin would be a target. It doesn't mean anything. Just restore it and forget about it.

[adamstgBit]

lmao  

[drakahn]

I log into Wikipedia and find that somebody deleted most of the article. What do I find as a reason?

Reason: Most of this is not true. Bitcoin is not real money. It's toy money, etc.

What gives people the idea that Bitcoin is play money when it trades at over $10 a unit? Why can't people see it as real or are threatened by the idea of it being real?

What do you tell someone who says "Bitcoin is not real money."?

Don't worry, It's not a real encyclopaedia :p

[thebaron]

Don't worry, It's not a real encyclopaedia :p

Do they really exist anymore? Encyclopedia Britannica published their last print edition ever in 2010. How long will they be able to keep full time staff on board and still be profitable?

[inglian]

Is email real mail? I don't think I care.

[tvbcof]

I log into Wikipedia and find that somebody deleted most of the article. What do I find as a reason?

Reason: Most of this is not true. Bitcoin is not real money. It's toy money, etc.

What gives people the idea that Bitcoin is play money when it trades at over $10 a unit? Why can't people see it as real or are threatened by the idea of it being real?

What do you tell someone who says "Bitcoin is not real money."?

As far as I'm concerned Bitcoin is the thing which is 'threatened' by being tagged with the term 'money', 'currency', or 'coin' (though the name is unfortunate in this regard.)  I favor defining Bitcoin as loosely as possible.  My preference would be to define it simply as a 'decentralized accounting solution', focus on making it useful and robust, and let things fall into place from there.

Beyond that, I think it appropriate to let 'the leaders' define things as they choose.  If Bernanke says gold is not money, that is (and was) totally cool with me.  I couldn't give two shits less.  It changed the characteristics of my PM stash and my desire to sit on it not one iota.  If we don't like the way the leadership does things then the appropriate response is to work toward changing the leadership IMHO.  US Govt personal, Wikipedia, etc...

[obisunk]

It's the 51% vote at work, or at least the perception of it.

[allthingsluxury]

Haha, funny person who clearly doesn't understand the meaning of money. People accept bitcoins for services and goods. Therefore it is a form of currency. If NO ONE was willing to accept bitcoins, then I might agree with him. These are the same type of guys that try to say gold and silver arn't money. When you ask them to explain themselves, their eyes glaze over as they try to remember the most recent sound bite from msnbc that they can repeat like a parrot.

[FrogBBQ]

In effect, bitcoin is not money but a currency.

The main difference that distinguishes the two is that money has intrinsic value (like precious metals) while currency has not (it is only worth the price of paper it is printed on). For example, prior to August 1971, the USD was money since you could exchange it for gold. Since then, it is a pure FIAT currency that can (and is) printed ex nihilo by the Fed. Same thing with most currency these days. We are in the end of a cycle (Brenton Woods 2) as most of you know.

What distinguished bitcoin from other currency is the fact that it is intrinsically limited to 21 million coins which makes it very valuable in its own right.

This video may interest some: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzHC7Pf2fk&feature=g-u-u

[odolvlobo]

In effect, bitcoin is not money but a currency.

The main difference that distinguishes the two is that money has intrinsic value (like precious metals) while currency has not (it is only worth the price of paper it is printed on).
...
This video may interest some: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzHC7Pf2fk&feature=g-u-u

Before I launch my assault on your statements, I want to thank you for posting the link to that video. It is a very interesting and Félix Moreno de la Cova does a great job of explaining the issues. Now then, ...

I guess you can define the term "money" any way you want, but that is not how everyone else defines it, but here is a large list of definitions of the word money, and none define it like you do. Anyway, things that have utility may have "intrinsic value", but gold has neither, and I challenge you come up with a non-subjective definition for "intrinsic value".

• Mirriam-Webster:  something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment
• Dictionary.com: any circulating medium of exchange, including coins, paper money,  and demand deposits
• Free Online Dictionary: A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account
• Wikipedia: Money is any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given socio-economic context or country.
• Investopedia: A commodity or asset, such as gold, an officially issued currency, coin or paper note, that can be legally exchanged for something equivalent, such as goods or services.
• Businessdictionary.com: Anything of value that serves as a (1) generally accepted medium of financial exchange, (2) legal tender for repayment of debt, (3) standard of value, (4) unit of accounting measure, and (5) means to save or store purchasing power.
• Oxford Dictionary: a current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively

[ElectricMucus]

Most additions on the wikipedia page don't stand up to scrutiny because they do not cite secondary sources and can be interpreted as original research.
You need to understand wikipedia and how it works... Especially editing mainly one article will get your edit removed quite often if this is the case.

To make sure it stays there you just have to be rigorous with your expressions and citations.

[FrogBBQ]

I guess you can define the term "money" any way you want

No you don't, currency is not a store of value. Your $1 or $100 bills are the very same piece of paper just with a different number printed on it (in effect a bond of zero duration since it is debt). People accept this number written on it as face value but there is no real value in it, it is perceived as one. However, there is a significant difference between 1oz gold coin and 100oz gold bar!

In economic terms what distinguish currency vs money are:
Currency: medium of exchange, unit of account, portable, divisible, durable, fungible (each unit is interchangeable)
Money:  medium of exchange, unit of account, portable, divisible, durable, fungible + store of value

Your "assault" makes no sense really. You may want to check this web page for additional information [http://fortuneability.com/money-vs-currency-the-story-of-gold-and-silver-by-mike-maloney/].

[JoelKatz]

No you don't, currency is not a store of value. Your $1 or $100 bills are the very same piece of paper just with a different number printed on it (in effect a bond of zero duration since it is debt). People accept this number written on it as face value but there is no real value in it, it is perceived as one. However, there is a significant difference between 1oz gold coin and 100oz gold bar!

If gold were to displace the dollar as the primary unit of exchange, almost all of its value would come from supply and demand for trade, just as it does for dollars. Most gold would be electronic, not physical bars or coins, just as dollars are. And there would be fractional reserve, just as for dollars. At that point, to argue that this "gold" has intrinsic value as a metal would be about as silly as arguing that money has intrinsic value as pieces of paper.

Does a 1 ounce note redeemable on demand for gold have intrinsic value? If so, then you can't argue that dollar bills are not a store of value because gold notes are also the same pieces of paper with different numbers printed on them. If not, then no modern currency or money will have intrinsic value because people will never bother lugging actual metals around -- under all realistic circumstances, they'll use electronics to move IOUs around. A 1 ounce gold check against the 54 ounces in my gold account works just the same as a $100 check against the $5,400 in my dollar account.

[lebing]

lmao  

This.

lol adam

[YokoToriyama]

toy money... i did not know you could eat with monopoly money

[tvbcof]

No you don't, currency is not a store of value. Your $1 or $100 bills are the very same piece of paper just with a different number printed on it (in effect a bond of zero duration since it is debt). People accept this number written on it as face value but there is no real value in it, it is perceived as one. However, there is a significant difference between 1oz gold coin and 100oz gold bar!

If gold were to displace the dollar as the primary unit of exchange, almost all of its value would come from supply and demand for trade, just as it does for dollars. Most gold would be electronic, not physical bars or coins, just as dollars are. And there would be fractional reserve, just as for dollars. At that point, to argue that this "gold" has intrinsic value as a metal would be about as silly as arguing that money has intrinsic value as pieces of paper.

Does a 1 ounce note redeemable on demand for gold have intrinsic value? If so, then you can't argue that dollar bills are not a store of value because gold notes are also the same pieces of paper with different numbers printed on them. If not, then no modern currency or money will have intrinsic value because people will never bother lugging actual metals around -- under all realistic circumstances, they'll use electronics to move IOUs around. A 1 ounce gold check against the 54 ounces in my gold account works just the same as a $100 check against the $5,400 in my dollar account.

I'm not sure I see the trajectory of Bitcoin being much different.  That is to say, at scale the transaction costs will likely be so high that most people will use 'bank-like' entities, and there is little reason that I can see why they won't tend toward fractional reserve methods.  I don't think many people will care that much as long as the 'banks' which do so are offering them cheaper transactions and/or more bells and whistles.