Bitcoin as currency of currencies

[lethalethereal]

It can be ... in the future, not now

[1715610161]

1715610161

[odolvlobo]

I think the main reason why currencies are quoted in USD is that it is ubiquitous and generally stable. If you want currencies to be quoted in BTC, then BTC would have to become more ubiquitous and stable than the USD (it could happen).

It seems like you believe that since the number of bitcoins is fixed, then its value does not vary. Here two reasons why I think that is not true:

The value of something is always relative to something else. Currently, the value of 1 bitcoin is equal to 451 dollars and it is also equal to 12.7 grams of gold. Both of those values could change tomorrow, and by different amounts. So when you assume bitcoin would have a constant value, the question becomes, constant relative to what, and what market mechanism ties the two values together?

Also, the value (more specifically, the price) of a bitcoin depends on supply and demand. As economies in the world grow and shrink, the supply and demand for bitcoins are going to change -- and so is the value of a bitcoin. Assuming that we expect the overall world economy to continue to grow, the common wisdom believes that will lead to an increasing demand for a fixed supply of bitcoins, and lead to a higher price. But, it could also be the case that increasing adoption and improved technology could increase the velocity of money, which would lower the demand instead, and lead to a lower price.

[n2004al]

Thank you for the comment Odolvlobo. And thank you twice for what you have written in your post. That's my comment:

For the first point my idea is that bitcoin be the beginning, the etalon for every other legal national (or whatever can be) currency (possibly and hopefully digital coin one as it is written in an comment in this thread). So like exists etalons as "measuring unit" for the weight, the length, etc be even a etalon for the currencies. In other words, being etalon mean being the "measure" of "measurement" of the value of all the above mentioned currencies (in one word all the possible currencies - even for those which will born in the future). To be so, must be fixed the price of it explained in unity of currency (as a basic unity which can measure currencies as a tool of exchange). If so the only thing that can be compared with bitcoin (with this status) can be only bitcoin.

As for the second point I have a dilemma about my thoughts. Have two ways of explaining and both may be questionable. Not because the first may be better than the second one but because both can be applied and can have different impact. This first one is that the above explanation give immediately the answer to your second point. If bitcoin accepted as a etalon its price will be fixed and any kind of phenomenon can change it. So this explain even my possible solution (thought) to your second point.

But I am a free spirit. And I don't want to make to the others someone which is not accepted by me. So I would like a free bitcoin and not a fixed one. In this meaning I have even a second idea to give. Maybe a little more difficult to be accepted or even understand, but that, according to me, might be applicable the same. Bitcoin be a "etalon in move" following the supply/demand for it and all the other factors which determine the value of market for a currency. This, according to me would the perfect choice. I understand that this may affect the value of the other currencies. But if the other currency will be well managed this risk is zero. Because the real value of a currency is based at the real need of the economy in which that currency has legal status. this is the first factor which determine its value. And if the amount of it in circulation is made correctly every change of the value of bitcoin (by whatever reason) will affect (normally) immediately even the value of every other currency managed in the right mode and correctly by the responsible Authorities. Correcting in this way the "error" become from the change of "value" of bitcoin.

So those are my thoughts. You are invited to comment those as you like.

Another last thing. I already know that bitcoin is not the best coin in the market of cryptos. So it is normal to be asked: why bitcoin such role and not another crypto better than it? I think must be bitcoin mainly for two reasons:

1. Always will be better cryptos in time. Cannot be changed an etalon every month or year. Bitcoin is the first of its species and deserve such role. To not forget that exist the possibility that "him" be perfected and improved always in time.
2. Bitcoin is not only the first of its species but it is even the first materialized, well known, and widespread product of the technology (peer to peer) which will change the world of technologies (but not only this) at least in the next 30 or even more years. Again this fact give to "him" the right to cover such place.

[avw1982]

It can be ... in the future, not now

Yeah It can’t be now. But many companies adapting are bitcoin and they are establishing bitcoin in their business. That’s the good symbol for bitcoin. Before completing 2016 many companies start to implement bitcoin. Then automatically it will happen.

[nerFohanzo]

It can be ... in the future, not now

Yeah It can’t be now. But many companies adapting are bitcoin and they are establishing bitcoin in their business. That’s the good symbol for bitcoin. Before completing 2016 many companies start to implement bitcoin. Then automatically it will happen.

It can be a currency in future but not the major currency, I mean it is difficult that bitcoin can ever become a primary currency, and if it does than it would be an magical experience, but for that it needs a support from the people, society, governments and the banking system, if adoption goes higher, bitcoin has better prospects.

[n2004al]

Bitcoin as a currency is the least interesting aspect about Bitcoin honestly.

CFTC has recently ruled bitcoin as a digital commodity, and I think personally it has more value treated like so.

There is no true valuation of Bitcoin that prices it even at the price it is at right now. If it should function as a currency, there stands no reason why it should be dislocated so greatly from other currencies.

If a currency needs 'support' then its just being propped up at a price that nobody else really wants to pay.

I was reading again the comments made on this thread about my main posts here and found something interesting in the above comment (the part in bold) and wanted to put here as a comment a mine comment - made after the above comment - created as a my search of data and exact definitions regarding the above. I am putting it here all (as it was and as a comment to the new Satoshi Nakamoto from Australia - is missing only the one from Pakistan and my country) because there is no need to do corrections. It is another mine different point of view comparing to important people of Institutions (always taking as true that the comments of the posters who name their thoughts, words or decisions about this matter are as they write. Again it would be pleasure for me to read any kind of comment even about this interpretation as well as the one written in the main post. Exist a specific in the above post made by CoinBateman. it is spoken about "digital commodity" and I haven't found any definition in internet about this concept. Everything below has to do simply with the commodity as it is know this existence until today and for which exist even definitions. If everyone have more to tell about the digital one is invited to explain here all he want. I will be curios the know the new definitions of this new concept.

I have to make only question about this fact: It is not this classification in a unknown thing since today an way to regulate bitcoin but to not accept that is a currency for reasons that only CFTC know?

Until that probable comment enjoy to everyone (and again discuss who want):

https://youtu.be/xIZWVu6XsO4

Clip 2: (Part A) Dr. Wright ...... says that Bitcoin is a commodity.

I am giving below a previous my post which analyze such kind of definition given by Dr. Wright (alias Satoshi Nakamoto). I am curious to learn his opinion about my thoughts and interpretations, but not being me Gavin Andresen with who he had privileged partnership, this my hope can be archived. Who know if I will be ably to sleep tonight after this disillusion. Below is t my previous post (only it is replaced the name of the previous poster with the name of Dr. Wright):

But lets go to the facts. According to Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commodity.asp :

1. A basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers. When they are traded on an exchange, commodities must also meet specified minimum standards, also known as a basis grade.

2. Any good exchanged during commerce, which includes goods traded on a commodity exchange.

So, according to Dr. Wright, we have a basic good that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. It is clear that bitcoin is a commodity because all the things bought with it are of the same type of it. All the computer bought at Dell with bitcoin, all the xBox bought at Microsoft with bitcoin and all the other things bought at internet with bitcoin (porn, movies, gambling etc.) are at the same type with bitcoin. Have its qualities (so with all of those can be bought everything), are an invention of a peer to peer technology and are all within internet (so don't exist out of it). More convincing arguments than the above Dr. Right cannot find.

Then, always according to Dr. Right, commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. Sure, Dr. Right learn to all us that bitcoin is used widely to produce all the above things bought by it. So bitcoin is used as input in the production of computers, xBox, in the producing of porn, movies, gambling etc. Who of us have not tasted a very good porn make and played from bitcoin itself. Another undeniable argumentation made by Dr. Right.

For me are enough those arguments to not go further. Who want to go forward can continue with the other arguments made from this brave, sure and deep cognitive of bitcoin.

Maybe needed to do ever one definition which fulfill the above argumentation of Dr. Right and without which can be created some doubt about everything written above. What is the meaning of good.

According to Wikipedia https://en.hwikipedia.org/wiki/Good_(economics):

In economics, a good is a material that satisfies human wants and provides utility, for example, to a consumer making a purchase. A common distinction is made between 'goods' that are tangible property (also called goods) and services, which are non-physical.

Then always according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangible_property :

Tangible property in law is, literally, anything which can be touched, and includes both real property and personal property (or movable property), and stands in distinction to intangible property.

The big Dr. Right tell in this case only one important thing which is a devastating argument in support of its inspiring theory: bitcoin is a good (commodities) which is a tangible property: so which can be touched (as it is written in the above definitions). Who of us have not touched with his hands the beautiful coin (commodity) named BITCOIN.