Re: Bye bye bitcoin (Split: Morality of Bitcoin vs. Fiat Discussion)

[Valerian77]

@wingding

Think about asset and value again. Nothing and all can have value. There are some concepts with big value and some goods with small value. Value is just a measurement of market acceptance and request. If enough people are believing and dealing with the same thing, whatever that might be, then it has a value. If the people loose their believe in gold the price will drop on the mining cost level - that might be pretty low according to the existing vast amounts of gold reserves.

Currently I see gold dropping down and Bitcoin raising up.

[1714129457]

1714129457

[johnyj]

There is indeed much more money than goods/services, but all those extra money were hold by the banks and they just hold more and more money and collecting interest from those money to spend

Since the interest of those money are extremely low (like 1%), even the money supply increased by 100%, the real added money supply in circulation is only 1%. That will not trigger any inflation, thus people still trust fiat money, and their trust enabled banks to accumulate huge amount of fiat money in their account

People usually are short sighted, as long as there is no inflation, they don't care how much money banks pocketed. Maybe there is a few brave souls trying to challenge banks' illicit profit method, but they will be overwhelmed by those economists that is brainwashed by the bankers. The bankers have created many misconceptions and illusions regarding money creation to disguise the simple fact that they just print money for themselves

[Hawker]

Bitcoin is not a currency. It can best be compared to rare football game card collecting. It has no value except for the imaginary value assigned to it by a small flock of enthusiasts. (Of course there is an very interesting and new technology behind it, but that is a completely different story)

That's how I see gold. 

Do you think it matters who is in the "small flock of enthusiasts?"  The British Pound is backed by the state and that particular small flock of enthusiasts has the means to ensure that retailers have to accept the pound in their shops.  Gold and bitcoin rely on both parties voluntarily agreeing to use the currency.  Do you think that its that power to coerce use of the Pound what makes it a currency?

[bitlancr]

The most common misunderstanding about Bitcoin is:

"there will never be more than 21 Million bitcoins". True or false?

Well, unfortunately, false for most use cases.

I've personally lent a bitcoin or two to someone.
For any economist in the world it is clear that i thereby created bitcoins.
Not "physical" or "digital" ones, sure, but "deposit" bitcoins.

Not true at all.

When I lend a (physical) book, I'm not creating a new book. I need to have that book in my possession, and once it's lent, it's no longer in my possession. Same goes for bitcoin - it has to leave your wallet to be lent.

Not sure what you mean when you say "deposit bitcoins," but if you were actually lending out some kind of promissory note backed by some amount of bitcoin in your wallet, then you weren't lending bitcoin. Who would accept your promissory notes over the real thing?

[qwk]

I've personally lent a bitcoin or two to someone.
For any economist in the world it is clear that i thereby created bitcoins.
Not "physical" or "digital" ones, sure, but "deposit" bitcoins.

Not sure what you mean when you say "deposit bitcoins," but if you were actually lending out some kind of promissory note backed by some amount of bitcoin in your wallet, then you weren't lending bitcoin.

If you're unsure about the meaning of the word "deposit", may I point you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_deposit,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33589,
because I'm not going to explain that in detail.

In short, when I lend you a bitcoin you receive 1 bitcoin, I receive an IOU for 1 bitcoin (the deposit bitcoin), totaling 2 bitcoins. The interest I will take for the loan will come on top of that and is actually the only part of the money supply that's created in the end after the debt's been settled. That interest is not created out of thin air and not artificially valued, but is equal to the lost opportunity value of the bitcoin I've given up (in a perfect market, in reality I will take a little profit, because I'm greedy )

Who would accept your promissory notes over the real thing?

You got it all backwards.
When I'm the one to lend you a bitcoin, I'm also the one who will accept that promissory note over the "real thing".
Why? Because I'll receive interest.

[bitlancr]

Who would accept your promissory notes over the real thing?

You got it all backwards.
When I'm the one to lend you a bitcoin, I'm also the one who will accept that promissory note over the "real thing".
Why? Because I'll receive interest.

It might be backwards, but the point still stands. You think that promissory note has the same purchasing power as bitcoin? Who else is going to accept it?

Think this through. You've exchanged a bitcoin for a bitcoin-backed promissory note. No bitcoin created.

[notme]

Who would accept your promissory notes over the real thing?

You got it all backwards.
When I'm the one to lend you a bitcoin, I'm also the one who will accept that promissory note over the "real thing".
Why? Because I'll receive interest.

It might be backwards, but the point still stands. You think that promissory note has the same purchasing power as bitcoin? Who else is going to accept it?

Think this through. You've exchanged a bitcoin for a bitcoin-backed promissory note. No bitcoin created.

No Bitcoin created indeed.  And if you aren't paid back, you don't get interest or principle.  This is how money is supposed to work, but with fiat we have centralized lending so we can socialize losses while fighting to maintain privatization of profits.

[qwk]

Bitcoin is not a currency. It can best be compared to rare football game card collecting. It has no value except for the imaginary value assigned to it by a small flock of enthusiasts. (Of course there is an very interesting and new technology behind it, but that is a completely different story)

Trading cards derive their value from the "want-to-have-this-special-card"-factor.
For bitcoins, this is not true. It might be true for colored coins in the future, though.
It does not matter which bitcoin I send you, you'll be happy as long as it's part of the Bitcoin network.
In other words, a single bitcoin does not have a definite value that sets it apart from other bitcoins.
That makes bitcoins interchangeable and a perfect medium of exchange, because they have practically no other use or purpose whatsoever, whereas trading cards might be used as a currency (in fact, on school playgrounds, they sometimes are), but generally are not.

You probably are aware of the common definitions of currency and money, but just for reference:

A much more general use of the word currency is anything that is used in any circumstances, as a medium of exchange. In this use, "currency" is a synonym for the concept of money.

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. The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, occasionally in the past, a standard of deferred payment. Any kind of object or secure verifiable record that fulfills these functions can be considered money.

I might add that one would have to make a little distinction here:
I try to use the word "Bitcoin" (capital B) when I refer to the Bitcoin system in its entirety, meaning the Satoshi whitepaper, the blockchain, the network and the miners, altogether building a payment system,
"bitcoin" (lowercase b) to describe the "currency", and
"bitcoins" to describe units of said currency.
(I'm not always very consequential about my usage, though)
("bit coins" being what my spell checker makes out of them )

[qwk]

Who would accept your promissory notes over the real thing?

You got it all backwards.
When I'm the one to lend you a bitcoin, I'm also the one who will accept that promissory note over the "real thing".
Why? Because I'll receive interest.

It might be backwards, but the point still stands. You think that promissory note has the same purchasing power as bitcoin? Who else is going to accept it?
Think this through. You've exchanged a bitcoin for a bitcoin-backed promissory note. No bitcoin created.

If you talk about bitcoins as records of the Bitcoin blockchain, you're absolutely right.
But the same argument holds true for any other currency.
No banknotes are created by widening the money supply of the USD (well, there are in fact extra banknotes printed, but that's got almost nothing to do with the widening of M1 - M3).
Following your argument would mean that the purchasing power of Dollar banknotes would be greater than the purchasing power of deposit Dollars. Interestingly, there is indeed a disparity between the purchasing power of a banknote and deposits. For small amounts, the banknote is usually favored, for large transfers, you'd probably have to pay a premium if you wanted to pay cash. But I guess that's not your point

Who else is going to accept my IOU? Well, even Bitcoins history tells us that there is indeed a market for debts, I recall several occasions where debt has been resold right here at bitcointalk.org, e.g. in the pirateat40 scam and others. Sure, those IOUs are usually priced at a discount that's taking into consideration the risk-to-opportunity-ratio, but again, that's not different from other currencies.

To sum it up: you may not like it, but there are more bitcoins than there are units of currency in the blockchain (well, in fact, no, that might or might not be true, because we would also have to consider the amount of lost bitcoins, well, you get the idea), and there's no difference between bitcoins and other currencies regarding this aspect of money creation.

[notme]

bitcoin IOU != bitcoin

As you said yourself, bitcoin IOUs sell at a discount to bitcoin, so they can't possibly be equivalent.

[Raize]

(Sorry if I go back to an earlier topic, I just wanted to make a point here)

Fiat is theft if the government requires you to pay your taxes only in fiat, which almost all presently do.

You can say the government doesn't force us to accept fiat for goods and services, but if they force your customers to take their pay in fiat and force your suppliers to pay for their service fees and use taxes in fiat, then it's pretty much a moot point. We use fiat because the government requires it, even if they don't *directly* require it from you.

"The government gives you the option to accept goods and services in fiat" would be the opposite form of the statement in question.

In this case, the word "option" would be a misnomer, however, because it really isn't an option if the government also controls the mechanisms through with the supplier and customer must deal with their benefactors by law. Requiring taxes in fiat only steals the opportunity for folks to choose what constitutes as money.

Ergo, issuing fiat money under the terms which governments presently do, is theft.

Even with this setup, however, gold and silver were still being used for years as currency by those folks that recognized fiat as theft. It wasn't until the government also started taxing gold and silver trades that it became difficult-to-impossible to use them as money. Thus, the theft-as-an-option became outright theft.

This is why Ron Paul wanted to remove these taxes, it was the first step toward a freer society. The next step would be allowing people to pay taxes in gold/silver/bitcoin.

[qwk]

bitcoin IOU != bitcoin
As you said yourself, bitcoin IOUs sell at a discount to bitcoin, so they can't possibly be equivalent.

That's why I referred to the bitcoin IOU as a "deposit" bitcoin. It's a bitcoin, nonetheless. It's not part of the blockchain, though, as long as it's not using colored coins, but that might just be a matter of time.
I also explicitly told you that they might be sold at a discount or a premium. They are not equivalent in the same way a USD banknote is not equivalent to a USD bank deposit. For any practical purpose, though, they are equivalent.

[notme]

bitcoin IOU != bitcoin
As you said yourself, bitcoin IOUs sell at a discount to bitcoin, so they can't possibly be equivalent.

That's why I referred to the bitcoin IOU as a "deposit" bitcoin. It's a bitcoin, nonetheless. It's not part of the blockchain, though, as long as it's not using colored coins, but that might just be a matter of time.
I also explicitly told you that they might be sold at a discount or a premium. They are not equivalent in the same way a USD banknote is not equivalent to a USD bank deposit. For any practical purpose, though, they are equivalent.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/065/007/popedeathstarye3.jpg

No it's not.  When I accept bitcoin payments, I do not accept bitcoin IOUs.

How about this practical purpose:
I have a USD banknote and a USD deposit, both equal in value to 1 gram of marijuana.  I wish to purchase 1 gram of marijuana and when I go to make the trade, I ask if I can pay by check.  The guy with the weed tells me to get the fuck out and never come back.

Also, in times of stress, banks limit withdrawals.  Your deposit becomes inaccessible.  This can not happen to a banknote in your possession.

So, tell me again, how USD banknotes and USD deposits are equivalent for any practical purpose.

[qwk]

Fiat is theft if the government requires you to pay your taxes only in fiat, which almost all presently do.

Let's ignore the nitpicking about "theft", "coercion", "robbery", and just use the word "theft" for the moment. I still have to point out that there's a huge difference between being required to use e.g. the Dollar to pay for taxes as opposed to being forced to hold onto the Dollar for your life savings. It's an inconvenience which I earlier on compared to the inconvenience of buying stamps to use postal service. Also, if during the exchange process into stamps you lose money (by exchange rates + fees, or lost opportunity value), this definitely is more than a little inconvenience, no doubt about that. But as long as the government does not profit from your loss, that's not theft, either.

You can say the government doesn't force us to accept fiat for goods and services, but if they force your customers to take their pay in fiat and force your suppliers to pay for their service fees and use taxes in fiat, then it's pretty much a moot point. We use fiat because the government requires it, even if they don't *directly* require it from you.

You're not required to pay your employees in Dollars, are you? At least here in Germany I pay a few of my employees at least partially in goods and services (even I'm payed in the form of a car and some other benefits, partially). I do have to value those in EUR, though, and tax them accordingly.

"The government gives you the option to accept goods and services in fiat" would be the opposite form of the statement in question.
In this case, the word "option" would be a misnomer, however, because it really isn't an option if the government also controls the mechanisms through with the supplier and customer must deal with their benefactors by law. Requiring taxes in fiat only steals the opportunity for folks to choose what constitutes as money.

As far as I can see, it only steals the opportunity value of holding another currency while you're exchanging and paying taxes etc. And I don't even see the government profiting from this.
I don't really understand what you mean by "the government also controls the mechanisms through which the supplier and customer must deal with their benefactors by law" and what implications that might have for our little discussion.
Also, I tend to regard "the government gives you the option to accept goods and services in fiat" as true.

Even with this setup, however, gold and silver were still being used for years as currency by those folks that recognized fiat as theft. It wasn't until the government also started taxing gold and silver trades that it became difficult-to-impossible to use them as money. Thus, the theft-as-an-option became outright theft.
This is why Ron Paul wanted to remove these taxes, it was the first step toward a freer society. The next step would be allowing people to pay taxes in gold/silver/bitcoin.

Gold/silver make terrible currencies, but that's a completely different issue. There's a reason why the free market chose to practically abandon gold and silver. This did not have to be enforced by the government but was a direct result of Gresham's law. Gold is still untaxed in many parts of the world, yet practically nowhere is it in use as a currency.
Allowing people to pay taxes in gold would lead to people paying taxes in Dollars, as a direct result of said Gresham's law.

If this could be considered a step towards a freer society, well, I don't know. It would probably lead to a higher bureaucratic burden, more government employees, higher taxes, and I fail to see where this could be considered progress towards freedom.

[qwk]

No it's not.  When I accept bitcoin payments, I do not accept bitcoin IOUs.
[...]
So, tell me again, how USD banknotes and USD deposits are equivalent for any practical purpose.

Nice straw man you're setting up there.
I explicitly detailed how a banknote might be preferred over a bank deposit earlier on. At the same time, there are situations where the opposite is true. For most practical uses, though, both are equivalent.
I buy a Big Mac, I pay cash, I pay by credit card, no questions asked.
I buy a car, I pay cash, I pay by credit card, no questions asked.
I buy a house, I pay cash - well, no.
I buy crack, I pay by credit card - well, no.

If you personally don't accept payments by bitcoin IOUs is just not the point.
At this very moment, a lot of people do, and they contribute a large portion of the Bitcoin economy, just think of all the coins sitting in exchanges or at bitfunder or in mining contracts.

You probably want Bitcoin to be "money". Unfortunately I'll have to tell you there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Bitcoin being money means Bitcoin functions as money, and that includes the process of money creation through lending.

The statement "there will never be more than 21 Million bitcoins" is false.
The statement "there will never be a monetary base M0 for the bitcoin currency larger than 21 Million" is true.

[Raize]

this definitely is more than a little inconvenience

Any entity that has a monopoly on force that requires you to convert your physical property into a convertible that they possess the supply of is extortion, a form of theft.

I don't really understand what you mean by "the government also controls the mechanisms through which the supplier and customer must deal with their benefactors by law" and what implications that might have for our little discussion.

The government provides welfare in the form of their fiat currency, meaning that your customers possess no wealth of their own, but rather than the government choosing to do welfare in the form of hard physical assets, like gold and silver, they instead give these potential customers representations of debt. If the ultimate end game is that all governments fail, said debt is, ultimately worthless, even if today it possesses a value to those who choose to transact in it.

The government also affects most suppliers as well, via legal tender laws. You are required (at least in the US) to accept fiat currency as legal tender for a loan, regardless of whatever it was originally transacted in. Because of this, suppose a supplier wanted a loan to acquire a large number of raw materials to assemble the trinkets you sell. Normally they'd just acquire debt payable in physical commodities, give you your trinkets, and then pay off those bank notes with the gold, silver, Bitcoins that you paid for their goods in and pocket whatever difference there was. But not so if the banker that made them the loan is forced to abide by legal tender laws and accept the fiat the government creates. In that case, they will actually encourage you to acquire the aforementioned worthless fiat currency that your customers have plenty of, so they can use that, and pocket the little remaining gold.

There's a reason why the free market chose to practically abandon gold and silver.

It's not because of Gresham's law, though. Gresham's law only describes the symptoms, but not the cause. The cause is because of legal tender laws that require fiat to be accepted by those giving out loans. Of course bad money drives out good. But the money is still bad and being propped up as equal to the good money. Once it's no longer propped up in such a fashion, the reverse happens, and typically quickly.

[qwk]

Any entity that has a monopoly on force that requires you to convert your physical property into a convertible that they possess the supply of is extortion, a form of theft.

I'm forced to convert my physical property into a convertible "they" possess, whenever I need to take a leak at a highway restroom. Yet, I somehow don't feel "robbed". I'm unsure if something like this exists in the U.S., but it is absolutely common here in Germany:
http://www.sanifair.de/sanifair/index_en.php
Now, joking aside, let's agree to disagree here, because I see no point in continuing the debate about that particular point.

I don't really understand what you mean by "the government also controls the mechanisms through which the supplier and customer must deal with their benefactors by law" and what implications that might have for our little discussion.

The government provides welfare in the form of their fiat currency, meaning that your customers possess no wealth of their own, but rather than the government choosing to do welfare in the form of hard physical assets, like gold and silver, they instead give these potential customers representations of debt. If the ultimate end game is that all governments fail, said debt is, ultimately worthless, even if today it possesses a value to those who choose to transact in it.

Okay, let me see if I got that right: the government provides welfare in the form of Dollars. My customers are on welfare (at least some of them). If the government gave them gold, I would not be forced to accept Dollars. But I would have to accept gold, right? (Which btw would be much more inconvenient for me, I have no direct use for gold, but I do have a direct use for Dollars). In the end, the government crumbles, and Dollars are worthless, but gold is still valuable. Sorry if this sounds like ridiculing your argument, that's really not my intention, but in the end, that's what it looks like. It just doesn't make any sense to me from a practical point of view. I don't use gold on an everyday basis. I do use cash on an everyday basis. As a store of value, I personally prefer other things over gold, and if it comes to "Endgame", i'd rather have booze and cigarettes than gold.

The government also affects most suppliers as well, via legal tender laws. You are required (at least in the US) to accept fiat currency as legal tender for a loan

Yes, for practical purposes, the same applies here.
But that doesn't stop you from making a contract where you trade goods against other goods. AFAIK, that's not illegal in the U.S. as well. Only in the case where the original fulfillment of the contract is no longer possible, you are required to accept a settlement in your respective currency. But that's actually no more than a practical necessity. How would you settle a contract if the normal delivery versus payment cycle becomes impossible for lack of the promised good? There has to be a fallback, and that's legal tender. BTW, you may define other fallbacks in a contract.

There is, however, no federal statute that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.

Because of this, suppose a supplier wanted a loan to acquire a large number of raw materials to assemble the trinkets you sell. Normally they'd just acquire debt payable in physical commodities, give you your trinkets, and then pay off those bank notes with the gold, silver, Bitcoins that you paid for their goods in and pocket whatever difference there was. But not so if the banker that made them the loan is forced to abide by legal tender laws and accept the fiat the government creates. In that case, they will actually encourage you to acquire the aforementioned worthless fiat currency that your customers have plenty of, so they can use that, and pocket the little remaining gold.

What was the original loan about? Dollars? Then why wouldn't it be paid back in Dollars? You're claiming an opportunity value for the debtor here. That's unethical. I lend somebody an apple, I want an apple back. I lend somebody a Dollar, I want a Dollar back. I lend him a Dollar and he buys gold with it and wants me to accept his gold as a settlement, but he will pocket the difference because the value of gold went up? No, thanks.
I will have to accept a repayment in Dollars if he no longer has the apple, though. That's uncomfortable, but there just has to be a fallback. We could have agreed on one-and-a-half pears instead, no need for the Dollar then. But what if he also doesn't have pears?

"And pocket the little remaining gold". Bankers are not Leprechauns who want to sit on a stash of gold
Just because you think fiat currency is worthless does not mean the same applies for the rest of the world.
Most banks, governments, wealthy individuals(citation needed), are actively trying to reduce their stash of gold.
They don't want it. Why? Because it holds very little opportunity value.

There's a reason why the free market chose to practically abandon gold and silver.

It's not because of Gresham's law, though. Gresham's law only describes the symptoms, but not the cause. The cause is because of legal tender laws that require fiat to be accepted by those giving out loans. Of course bad money drives out good. But the money is still bad and being propped up as equal to the good money. Once it's no longer propped up in such a fashion, the reverse happens, and typically quickly.

In reality, Gresham's law is not applicable in its traditional form when it comes to the choice between gold and fiat money.
Fiat won't drive out gold. Or, more generally speaking, bad money won't drive out good money in a free market, it will just adjust in price until the bad money is valued low enough to be competitive with good money. Because of its utility value, though, the bad money will still be preferred.
When you follow that argument to its end, you will find that the Dollar/gold exchange rate already has all the risks that come with fiat priced in. In other words, you don't lose much more than a little "friction" when you convert your Dollars into gold and vice versa.
Now, let's come back to the main point of the argument, is that little friction really theft?

[DeathAndTaxes]

Bitcoin is not a currency. It can best be compared to rare football game card collecting. It has no value except for the imaginary value assigned to it by a small flock of enthusiasts. (Of course there is an very interesting and new technology behind it, but that is a completely different story)

The same could be said of all current, future and past currencies the only difference is the size of the "flock of enthusiasts".

[DeathAndTaxes]

There's a reason why the free market chose to practically abandon gold and silver.

It's not because of Gresham's law, though. Gresham's law only describes the symptoms, but not the cause. The cause is because of legal tender laws that require fiat to be accepted by those giving out loans. Of course bad money drives out good. But the money is still bad and being propped up as equal to the good money. Once it's no longer propped up in such a fashion, the reverse happens, and typically quickly.

This.  The often misquoted Gresham's if often misquoted to mean "bad money displaces good money" but this important caveat is UNDER GOVERNMENTAL FORCE.  As for spenders it makes sense.  I have this dollar I don't trust and I have this lump of gold I do trust.  I will save the gold and spend the dollar.   However if one thinks a little deeper if logically one wants to keep gold and get rid of dollars why would a merchant accept dollars.  Maybe they would in a limited fashion to quickly exchange the dollar for gold and pawn the risk on some other sucker but if everyone is doing that then essentially there is no market for the bad money.  However Gresham's law is pointing out that if the government makes the bad money legal tender and thus obligating its acceptance is certain scenarios then the better money is displaced.   Without the government using force people would simply demand the better money (gold) or at a minimum charge a higher price for payment in the bad money.

[theonewhowaskazu]

"The cause is because of legal tender laws that require fiat to be accepted by those giving out loans."

What exactly does this mean? That legal tender must be accepted (i.e, if I lent you 10 BTC, when they were worth $10 apiece, and now they're $100 apiece, so I must accept $1000 USD as my payment) or that loans must be denominated in legal tender? If its the latter, how does shorting work?