Why bitcoin isn't currency.

[sublime5447]

Seems like it wouldnt be that big of a deal.

On the homepage of Ripple post 1 ripple ='s 1 KWH

Remove the limit and tie currency creation to its velocity. As more people decide to transact in it do what helicopter ben suggested and randomly distribute the new currency into clients.

That is how the central bank stabilize currency they create more of it as more people decide to transact in it.

[NewLiberty]

2- All units are equal to a constant.

So, what constant is a dollar equal to which makes it a unit?

Presuming you mean the US Dollar   371 4/16th grains (24.057 grams) of Silver when it was established.  This was done by taking a bunch of the silver coins then in circulation, measuring them and averaging.
............

All this aside, bitcoin is a unit of account, in the same way that all other currencies are a unit of account.

Just because it's value and purchasing power change does not make this untrue.  Time, date, payment, all are recorded in the block chain so it makes for a better unit of account than any other currency commonly traded.

[sublime5447]

2- All units are equal to a constant.

So, what constant is a dollar equal to which makes it a unit?

Presuming you mean the US Dollar   371 4/16th grains (24.057 grams) of Silver when it was established.  This was done by taking a bunch of the silver coins then in circulation, measuring them and averaging.
............

All this aside, bitcoin is a unit of account, in the same way that all other currencies are a unit of account.

Just because it's value and purchasing power change does not make this untrue.  Time, date, payment, all are recorded in the block chain so it makes for a better unit of account than any other currency commonly traded.

No it isn't... UNITs are definable in objective terms and are a constant. It is puedo-unit, just like the dollar. "Currency" after 1971 became no different than collectibles. After 1971 we started measuring an opinion with an opinion.

We have been trading the equivalent of baseball cards or paintings.

 

[sdp]

The US Dollar 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. 

I was expecting something thought provoking and instead I find Joey from Friends trying to be an economist.  Or perhaps more like M. Le Blanc who pretends to be stupid for the character he plays.  I'm not sure which.

 

[sublime5447]

^  idiot.

Here it is from the horses mouth. This is from the owner of BTC china.

China has been known as a nation of savers, who are always saving for a rainy day,” says Lee.  ”Bitcoin is a digital asset, like real estate, gold, or stock. It is just one more option now. With Bitcoin hard-coded to be limited, it’s like a collectible.”

It isnt currency.

[sublime5447]

The US Dollar 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. 

I was expecting something thought provoking and instead I find Joey from Friends trying to be an economist.  Or perhaps more like M. Le Blanc who pretends to be stupid for the character he plays.  I'm not sure which.

 

Ya douche the dollar hasnt been currency for 40+ years.

[benjamindees]

Seems like it wouldnt be that big of a deal.

On the homepage of Ripple post 1 ripple ='s 1 KWH

Remove the limit and tie currency creation to its velocity. As more people decide to transact in it do what helicopter ben suggested and randomly distribute the new currency into clients.

That is how the central bank stabilize currency they create more of it as more people decide to transact in it.

I'll just point out that, in your hilariously ill-conceived joke of a system here, one would be able to create "energy credits" by trading ripples back and forth between yourself.  Do you really not recognize this as a fundamental flaw of your insistence on tying a (subjective) currency with (objective) physical goods?

[sublime5447]

Seems like it wouldnt be that big of a deal.

On the homepage of Ripple post 1 ripple ='s 1 KWH

Remove the limit and tie currency creation to its velocity. As more people decide to transact in it do what helicopter ben suggested and randomly distribute the new currency into clients.

That is how the central bank stabilize currency they create more of it as more people decide to transact in it.

I'll just point out that, in your hilariously ill-conceived joke of a system here, one would be able to create "energy credits" by trading ripples back and forth between yourself.  Do you really not recognize this as a fundamental flaw of your insistence on tying a (subjective) currency with (objective) physical goods?

PRICE IT THE REPRESENTATION OF THE SUBJECTIVE NATURE OF VALUE!!!

[sublime5447]

Seems like it wouldnt be that big of a deal.

On the homepage of Ripple post 1 ripple ='s 1 KWH

Remove the limit and tie currency creation to its velocity. As more people decide to transact in it do what helicopter ben suggested and randomly distribute the new currency into clients.

That is how the central bank stabilize currency they create more of it as more people decide to transact in it.

I'll just point out that, in your hilariously ill-conceived joke of a system here, one would be able to create "energy credits" by trading ripples back and forth between yourself.  Do you really not recognize this as a fundamental flaw of your insistence on tying a (subjective) currency with (objective) physical goods?

There would be no reason to for someone to trade back and forth between themselves as they would not receive any of the RANDOMLY distributed new units.

The knife would cut both ways.

It would not only create new units when demand was high it would also destroy old units as demand fell.  

[Adrian-x]

PRICE IT THE REPRESENTATION OF THE SUBJECTIVE NATURE OF VALUE!!!

Are there any units to measure subjective phenomena other than an arbitrary relation to collective consensus?

If we attempt to measure collective consensus, we need to have a measurement that is fixed and not dependant on SUBJECTIVE NATUREOF VALUE

[sublime5447]

PRICE IT THE REPRESENTATION OF THE SUBJECTIVE NATURE OF VALUE!!!

Are there any units to measure subjective phenomena other than an arbitrary relation to collective consensus?

If we attempt to measure collective consensus, we need to have a measurement that is fixed and not dependant on SUBJECTIVE NATUREOF VALUE

No all units are a shared opinion.

I am not sure what you are trying to say in the second line?

[sublime5447]

Seems like it wouldnt be that big of a deal.

On the homepage of Ripple post 1 ripple ='s 1 KWH

Remove the limit and tie currency creation to its velocity. As more people decide to transact in it do what helicopter ben suggested and randomly distribute the new currency into clients.

That is how the central bank stabilize currency they create more of it as more people decide to transact in it.

I'll just point out that, in your hilariously ill-conceived joke of a system here, one would be able to create "energy credits" by trading ripples back and forth between yourself.  Do you really not recognize this as a fundamental flaw of your insistence on tying a (subjective) currency with (objective) physical goods?

Currency has been an objective UNIT most of human history.

This is the way that the dollar works right now. The real problem is that the new units are given to banks and wall street. Ben had a good idea when he suggested dropping currency from a helicopter.

[benjamindees]

Currency has been an objective UNIT most of human history.

I'm sorry, but, once again, this is simply wrong.  I would get out my hundred-year-old Black's Law Dictionary and quote from the definition of "currency" and the half-dozen cases that explain in detail why currency, not only the concept but the actual etymology of the word itself, is subjectively determined by market acceptance, but I've posted it here before and I'm not sure that would convince you, regardless.  Just search my posts in the legal section if you're interested.  Or we could go through the hundreds of years of human history during which currency was not constant, and catalogue the millions of people who lived and died their entire lives using currency that was not an objective unit of value.  Or we can point to any of the dozens of fiat currencies in existence today whose values change continuously, yet which billions of people use as currencies regardless.  But we've already done that, I think, and it didn't convince you either.  So, frankly I can't say there's much left to point out.  Your ridiculous view of currency as a defined "unit" requires someone to back that definition against the collective force of billions of market participants, which is objectively impossible.  Stick with Federal Reserve Notes if you think otherwise.  That sounds like the closest thing to what you seem to want anyways.  Good luck.

[sublime5447]

Currency has been an objective UNIT most of human history.

I'm sorry, but, once again, this is simply wrong.  I would get out my hundred-year-old Black's Law Dictionary and quote from the definition of "currency" and the half-dozen cases that explain in detail why currency, not only the concept but the actual etymology of the word itself, is subjectively determined by market acceptance, but I've posted it here before and I'm not sure that would convince you, regardless.  Just search my posts in the legal section if you're interested.  Or we could go through the hundreds of years of human history during which currency was not constant, and catalogue the millions of people who lived and died their entire lives using currency that was not an objective unit of value.  Or we can point to any of the dozens of fiat currencies in existence today whose values change continuously, yet which billions of people use as currencies regardless.  But we've already done that, I think, and it didn't convince you either.  So, frankly I can't say there's much left to point out.  Your ridiculous view of currency as a defined "unit" requires someone to back that definition against the collective force of billions of market participants, which is objectively impossible.  Stick with Federal Reserve Notes if you think otherwise.  That sounds like the closest thing to what you seem to want anyways.  Good luck.

If you have a different definition of currency I would love to see it. 

links?

[darkmule]

I hope I'm improving this incredibly important thread with this observation.

Bitcoin is NOT my dick.

My dick is incredibly important.  It accomplishes a lot of things and inseminates a lot of bitches.

Bitcoin does NONE of these things.

We should, therefore, get rid of Bitcoin and replace it with my dick.

Discussion ensues.

[benjamindees]

Currency has been an objective UNIT most of human history.

I'm sorry, but, once again, this is simply wrong.  I would get out my hundred-year-old Black's Law Dictionary and quote from the definition of "currency" and the half-dozen cases that explain in detail why currency, not only the concept but the actual etymology of the word itself, is subjectively determined by market acceptance, but I've posted it here before and I'm not sure that would convince you, regardless.  Just search my posts in the legal section if you're interested.  Or we could go through the hundreds of years of human history during which currency was not constant, and catalogue the millions of people who lived and died their entire lives using currency that was not an objective unit of value.  Or we can point to any of the dozens of fiat currencies in existence today whose values change continuously, yet which billions of people use as currencies regardless.  But we've already done that, I think, and it didn't convince you either.  So, frankly I can't say there's much left to point out.  Your ridiculous view of currency as a defined "unit" requires someone to back that definition against the collective force of billions of market participants, which is objectively impossible.  Stick with Federal Reserve Notes if you think otherwise.  That sounds like the closest thing to what you seem to want anyways.  Good luck.

If you have a different definition of currency I would love to see it.  

links?

COIN, n.  Pieces of gold, silver, or other metal, fashioned into a prescribed shape, weight, and degree of fineness, and stamped, by authority of government, with certain marks and devices, and put into circulation as money at a fixed value, Com. v. Gallagher, 16 Gray, Mass., 240;  Latham v. U.S., 1 Ct.Cl. 150; Borie v. Trott, 5 Phila., Pa., 403

Furthermore, coin, money, and currency at least (of the terms you listed) each have distinct definitions that pre-date any US government:  (emphasis mine)

Strictly speaking, coin differs from money, as the species differs from the genus.  Money is any matter, whether metal, paper, beads, shells, etc., which has currency as a medium in commerce.  Coin is a particular species, always made of metal, and struck according to a certain process called "coinage."  Wharton.

Coin is just one type of money.  Money is that which has currency.  Currency is current value.  Pop Tarts constitute currency in some places.  There is absolutely no reason not to refer to Bitcoins as currency.

You keep wanting to claim that currency is a unit.  That's etymologically incorrect.  Commodity is the unit, because a commodity is a bunch of items that are all functionally equivalent.  They can be used as units because they have common value.  Currency is that which circulates as a medium of exchange, like a current.

[MakeBelieve]

I hope I'm improving this incredibly important thread with this observation.

Bitcoin is NOT my dick.

My dick is incredibly important.  It accomplishes a lot of things and inseminates a lot of bitches.

Bitcoin does NONE of these things.

We should, therefore, get rid of Bitcoin and replace it with my dick.

Discussion ensues.

It could just go mainstream who knows?



Let's end this discussion and stop the debates shall we? There's been a explanation (a few) to provide you with enough information that Bitcoin is not a currency.

[benjamindees]

The Merchant's Magazine and Commercial Review, 1864:

A promise to pay may represent coin, and circulate as such.  It is properly designated as currency, and is one of many modes by which the use of an expensive standard may be spared by the substitution, as a medium of exchange, of public or private credit.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8IsoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA394

There, yet another source showing that currency is not a "standard unit," but in fact the complete opposite, the avoidance of an "expensive standard."

Bitcoin is a damn-near perfect example, avoiding the cost of economic calculation via complete disconnect from any objective standard of value.

[sublime5447]

Currency has been an objective UNIT most of human history.

I'm sorry, but, once again, this is simply wrong.  I would get out my hundred-year-old Black's Law Dictionary and quote from the definition of "currency" and the half-dozen cases that explain in detail why currency, not only the concept but the actual etymology of the word itself, is subjectively determined by market acceptance, but I've posted it here before and I'm not sure that would convince you, regardless.  Just search my posts in the legal section if you're interested.  Or we could go through the hundreds of years of human history during which currency was not constant, and catalogue the millions of people who lived and died their entire lives using currency that was not an objective unit of value.  Or we can point to any of the dozens of fiat currencies in existence today whose values change continuously, yet which billions of people use as currencies regardless.  But we've already done that, I think, and it didn't convince you either.  So, frankly I can't say there's much left to point out.  Your ridiculous view of currency as a defined "unit" requires someone to back that definition against the collective force of billions of market participants, which is objectively impossible.  Stick with Federal Reserve Notes if you think otherwise.  That sounds like the closest thing to what you seem to want anyways.  Good luck.

If you have a different definition of currency I would love to see it.  

links?

COIN, n.  Pieces of gold, silver, or other metal, fashioned into a prescribed shape, weight, and degree of fineness, and stamped, by authority of government, with certain marks and devices, and put into circulation as money at a fixed value, Com. v. Gallagher, 16 Gray, Mass., 240;  Latham v. U.S., 1 Ct.Cl. 150; Borie v. Trott, 5 Phila., Pa., 403

Furthermore, coin, money, and currency at least (of the terms you listed) each have distinct definitions that pre-date any US government:  (emphasis mine)

Strictly speaking, coin differs from money, as the species differs from the genus.  Money is any matter, whether metal, paper, beads, shells, etc., which has currency as a medium in commerce.  Coin is a particular species, always made of metal, and struck according to a certain process called "coinage."  Wharton.

Coin is just one type of money.  Money is that which has currency.  Currency is current value.  Pop Tarts constitute currency in some places.  There is absolutely no reason not to refer to Bitcoins as currency.

You keep wanting to claim that currency is a unit.  That's etymologically incorrect.  Commodity is the unit, because a commodity is a bunch of items that are all functionally equivalent.  They can be used as units because they have common value.  Currency is that which circulates as a medium of exchange, like a current.

I dont claim that. I didnt define money. I didnt pull the shit out of my ass. Money is a UNIT of account. You act like I am the only person on the plant that says money is a UNIT!

[sublime5447]

The Merchant's Magazine and Commercial Review, 1864:

A promise to pay may represent coin, and circulate as such.  It is properly designated as currency, and is one of many modes by which the use of an expensive standard may be spared by the substitution, as a medium of exchange, of public or private credit.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8IsoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA394

There, yet another source showing that currency is not a "standard unit," but in fact the complete opposite, the avoidance of an "expensive standard."

Bitcoin is a damn-near perfect example, avoiding the cost of economic calculation via complete disconnect from any objective standard of value.

The coin is the UNIT.

It doesnt say avoidance it say substitution