Bitcoin is a property, not a currency

[someotherguy]

Bitcoin is not a currency, and we all know this... so why is it treated as such?

[1715000508]

1715000508

[1715000508]

1715000508

[1715000508]

1715000508

[1715000508]

1715000508

[FreeMoney]

and we all know this... 

My best math teacher said that if you ever wrote "obviously..." or "clearly..." you could just as easily write the supporting statement. Do that. Your argument will have this form: A thing is a currency if and only if it satisfies these requirements.... Bitcoin does not satisfy this particular requirement... therefore it is not a currency.

[muyoso]

My best math teacher said that if you ever wrote "obviously..." or "clearly..." you could just as easily write the supporting statement. Do that. Your argument will have this form: A thing is a currency if and only if it satisfies these requirements.... Bitcoin does not satisfy this particular requirement... therefore it is not a currency.

Should have listened to your Logic 101 teacher.

If P then Q.  Not P therefore not Q.

If (satisfy currency requirements) then (bitcoin is a currency).  Not (satisfy currency requirements) therefore not (bitcoin is a currency).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

One of the first logical fallacies you learn about in Logic class.

[BBanzai]

If your commodity is untaxable, then BC is a currency.  If your expenses are taxed, then BC is a commodity.

[FreeMoney]

My best math teacher said that if you ever wrote "obviously..." or "clearly..." you could just as easily write the supporting statement. Do that. Your argument will have this form: A thing is a currency if and only if it satisfies these requirements.... Bitcoin does not satisfy this particular requirement... therefore it is not a currency.

Should have listened to your Logic 101 teacher.

If P then Q.  Not P therefore not Q.

If (satisfy currency requirements) then (bitcoin is a currency).  Not (satisfy currency requirements) therefore not (bitcoin is a currency).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

One of the first logical fallacies you learn about in Logic class.

I said "if and only if". If you gotta nit, nit better.

[benjamindees]

Should have listened to your Logic 101 teacher.

*misuse of logical fallacy*

Unfortunately that's pretty much what my Logic 101 class was like.  Any idiot can be a college professor these days.

[hugolp]

My best math teacher said that if you ever wrote "obviously..." or "clearly..." you could just as easily write the supporting statement. Do that. Your argument will have this form: A thing is a currency if and only if it satisfies these requirements.... Bitcoin does not satisfy this particular requirement... therefore it is not a currency.

Should have listened to your Logic 101 teacher.

If P then Q.  Not P therefore not Q.

If (satisfy currency requirements) then (bitcoin is a currency).  Not (satisfy currency requirements) therefore not (bitcoin is a currency).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

One of the first logical fallacies you learn about in Logic class.

I said "if and only if". If you gotta nit, nit better.

And we have a winner!

[Dhomochevsky]

Bitcoin is not a currency, and we all know this... so why is it treated as such?

No, we don't all know this. Why don't you enlighten us, the more ignorant ones, on why it isn't a currency? I mean, after having used it as a medium for exchange several times you could've fooled me, I could've sworn it was a currency.

[hugolp]

Bitcoin is not a currency, and we all know this... so why is it treated as such?

A currency is a property, and a property can be a currency.

[Rassah]

All currencies are commodities, and all commodities are property. The idea that currency is a commodity (like sugar or oil) and is subject to the exact same rules (supply/demand/ownership/etc) is just not something people really think about or realize.

[XRcode]

Hahaha... Dollars are no more of a currency than Bitcoins.

[marcus_of_augustus]

What you physically possess in the wallet.dat on your computer is the private key that gives you access rights to move value around on the blockchain.

It more like a property right than a property per se. The property right, i.e. the private key, is also a property and can also have a value attached to it, like a land property title can become more valuable than the land in areas where titles have been made artificially scarce by subdivision by-laws and is also similar to legal claims on ownership rights to production like options, futures, derivatives, etc.

[Ellen Alemany]

A financial instrument is defined to be a currency only if it is issued by a monetary authority. Therefore bitcoin is not a currency.

To use an iff. definition in this case requires a bit of work and for the case when we want to disprove such a simple statement it is obviously not necessary.

I said "if and only if". If you gotta nit, nit better.

For comparison: gold is not a currency, neither is it appropriate to use it as such due to large (compared to currency) volatility.

However, here we see a big difference between gold and BC and that is that BC can immediately upon reception be transferred into dollar thus giving its users the ability to make transactions without exposing themselves to any significant volatility-risk. With this said BC is not a currency but can be used as one due to extremely good 'maneuverability' and liquidity.

[evoorhees]

Bitcoin is not a currency, and we all know this... so why is it treated as such?

Check your premises.

You may find that Bitcoin is, in fact, a currency. Upon finding this, you will no longer be confused as to why it is treated as such.

[Leon]

Bitcoin is not a currency, and we all know this... so why is it treated as such?

WoW lol.

[BBanzai]

Do not text your evisceral response, please. Take the time to corral your thoughts on the matter, reply with a complete sentence at the very least.