Why bitcoin isn't currency.

[benjamindees]

You keep wanting to claim that currency is a unit.

I dont claim that.

Now you're just trolling.

Currency is a unit.

[1714847442]

1714847442

[1714847442]

1714847442

[1714847442]

1714847442

[1714847442]

1714847442

[1714847442]

1714847442

[sublime5447]

You keep wanting to claim that currency is a unit.

I dont claim that.

Now you're just trolling.

Currency is a unit.

What I am saying is I didnt define currency.

[grondilu]

It is a unit in the system of measurement of value. Just like an inch is a unit in the system of measurement for length.

A unit of measurement is a definite magnitude of a physical quantity.

A bitcoin is a unit for an amount of bitcoins.   It sounds like a tautology, but it's not.   A satoshi (10e-8 bitcoins) is an other unit for the amount of bitcoins.    Had satoshi called his system "bitgold", he could have called the standard unit a "bitgram" for instance.  Things would maybe have been clearer.   He did not, so that might confuse some.  The thing is that there is no other word to call the "electronic substance" that can be transferred with the bitcoin software.


Whether bitcoins as a whole can be used as a measurement for value (in the sense "commercial value") is a very different matter.  Whether it is true or not does not change the fact that bitcoin is indeed a unit.

[grondilu]

A unit of measurement is a definite magnitude of a physical quantity.

Is a year a definite magnitude of a physical quantity? What is the physical quantity? Is a day a definite magnitude of a physical quantity? What happens when we add leap seconds?

That was a quote from Wikipedia.   Obviously for some things the world "physical" has to be taken metaphorically.   Also, I'm not sure "physical" means "material".   Time is a physical concept so I would not be surprised if it could be considered as a physical quantity, thus making the second a physical unit (few people would doubt that, anyway).

(*) Is it "number of bitcoins" or "amount of bitcoin"? "Amount of bitcoins" is grammatically incorrect. Either bitcoins are countable or bitcoin is uncountable. You seem to be treating it as the latter, in which case it would be "a bitcoin of bitcoin" or "a satoshi of bitcoin", and "bitcoin" and "satoshi" would indeed be units.

As I wrote, things would have been clearer if Satoshi had used a different word to call the "substance" and the "unit"  (as I imagined, with "bitgold" and "bitgram" for instance).  He did not, so "bitcoin" has several meanings.   It's a bit as if we were using the word "water" both for the liquid substance and for a standard amount of it.

[grondilu]

Time is a physical concept so I would not be surprised if it could be considered as a physical quantity, thus making the second a physical unit (few people would doubt that, anyway).

Quantity of what? Not seconds.

Of time.   Jeez.

Is the magnitude of time which represents a day (or a year) definite? I don't know how many seconds are going to be in a day on July 12, 2027 (or in the year 2027). It depends on how fast the earth spins.

For Pete's sake, it's not because something is not defined with absolute extreme precision that it does not exist.  A day is the time Earth takes to turn around itself.  It minutely slows through time, but for all intends and purposes, it is constant enough.  A little bit of pragmatism, please.

Even so, "amount of waters" is definitely wrong. If you have 5 waters of water, then 5 waters is the amount of water you have, and 5 is the number of waters you have.

I don't know where you're going.   If think there is nothing wrong with bitcoin being a unit.  It's a bit polysemic, but that's fine.

[grondilu]

A day is the time Earth takes to turn around itself.

No, it isn't.

[grondilu]

A day is the time Earth takes to turn around itself.

No, it isn't.

Yeah...
Whatever...

Keep getting your information from Wikipedia, though.  

I don't need Wikipedia to know what a day is, thanks.  But it's useful to show it to you since apparently you failed elementary school.

[grondilu]

I don't need Wikipedia to know what a day is, thanks.

Fair enough. Are you talking about a sidereal day or a solar day? Try to answer without looking at Wikipedia.

Both are days.  You did ask what a day is, without more details.  The general answer is that a day is the time Earth takes to turn around itself.  In a solar day, the Sun is used as a spatial reference.  In a sidereal day, distant stars.  In anyway, both concepts fit the definition of "the time Earth takes to turn around itself", that's why we use the same word to name them, and distinct them only with an adjective (solar or sidereal).

And no, I don't need Wikipedia to know that.  I've learnt that at elementary school and you probably did too if you paid any attention.   This is fucking basic common knowledge.

[NewLiberty]

I don't need Wikipedia to know what a day is, thanks.

Fair enough. Are you talking about a sidereal day or a solar day? Try to answer without looking at Wikipedia.

Both are days.  You did ask what a day is, without more details.  The general answer is that a day is the time Earth takes to turn around itself.  In a solar day, the Sun is used as a spatial reference.  In a sidereal day, distant stars.  In anyway, both concepts fit the definition of "the time Earth takes to turn around itself", that's why we use the same word to name them, and distinct them only with an adjective (solar or sidereal).

And no, I don't need Wikipedia to know that.  I've learnt that at elementary school and you probably did too if you paid any attention.   This is fucking basic common knowledge.

Troy Ounce, Avoirdupois Ounce

[grondilu]

No, the general answer is that a day is 24 hours

I'd say that's rather the definition of an hour (the historical definition anyway, since the second and thus the hour is no more defined with any astronomical concept, nowadays), being 1/24 of a solar day.    And yes, a day is the time Earth takes to turn around itself.  A solar day is still a day, it's just that the rotation of Earth in this case is relative to the Sun, not distant stars.

And it is a unit of time.   Not the most accurate one, sure, but it is still a unit of time.

[grondilu]

No, the general answer is that a day is 24 hours

I'd say that's rather the definition of an hour (the historical definition anyway, since the second and thus the hour is no more defined with any astronomical concept, nowadays), being 1/24 of a solar day.

You'd be wrong. An hour is 60 minutes, and a minute is usually, but not always, 60 seconds.

Some minutes are 61 seconds long, just like some years are 366 days long.

I wrote it was the historical definition.  I'm not interested in discussing the oddities of the calendar and time definitions, due to the mismatch between the current, physical definition of the second and the astronomic dynamics of the Earth around the sun.

What is the point your trying to make, exactly?   That neither a second, a minute, a day or a year are units of time??   Yes they are.   It's not because their definition is complicated that they are not units.   The devil is in the details, but fortunately we can ignore the details most of the time.

[greenlion]

The way that the Bitcoin network organizes data into a structure using the laws of mathematics to designate value is no different in principle than the way that the physical laws of nature organize matter into a crystalline structure that is gold.

If the internet or Bitcoin network stopped operating Bitcoin would disappear the same way that the expanding red giant sun will destroy all gold on earth in less than 5 billion years. The underlying structural organization would fall into entropy because the underlying order producing that structure break down and get superseded.

[mirelo]

First, I dont want this to be true but it is.

Currency is a unit.

It is a unit in the system of measurement of value. Just like an inch is a unit in the system of measurement for length.

Units (and there have been thousands of different ones) all have 2 things in common.

1- They are not real. They are all made up, everyone of them is just an opinion. Inch, pound, meter, cat 5, g force,currency --- not real.
the are all just an opinion that we chose to share. We all share the opinion that an inch is so long, if we all shared the opinion that an inch was a foot then it would be.

2- All units are equal to a constant and are objectively definable.

Bitcoin 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.

* note that the USD no longer fits the definition of currency either. It is not a UNIT

Unlike other units of measure, money does not measure the physical properties it has in common with other objects, like a standard weight or length would do. Instead, it measures exchange value - which is never a physical property.

Regarding this, bitcoin is just like any other form of money.

[MoonShadow]

Let's get back on topic, please.

Now, with precision, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[sublime5447]

Please read this conversation.


https://www.facebook.com/mark.thornton.3760/posts/10153448347155650?comment_id=45550099&offset=0&total_comments=32&notif_t=feed_comment_reply

[sublime5447]

I am chris my wife is Amber, you are the one who is mistaken.

Please comment on the post if you see an error.

[NewLiberty]

Please read this conversation.


https://www.facebook.com/mark.thornton.3760/posts/10153448347155650?comment_id=45550099&offset=0&total_comments=32&notif_t=feed_comment_reply

I'm having difficulty following that conversation and get lost on almost every statement.  Maybe you could help?  Here is a small example:

"ChrisandAmber North "because prices adjust not only to the quantity of goods but the quantity of money." That is not honest money! It is not the value of the currency that should change with demand but the quantity. That system enriches people by simply holding currency. That is immoral. You should not get increased value for doing nothing. That is the way bitcoin and currency speculation works now."

Questions:  
1) What is the immoral act of simply holding currency?  
It is very clearly ethical to act or not to act based on one's own agreements and decisions.  This holding currency though also seems morally neutral.  If one benefits from saving due to the immoral spending behavior of others, it would even seem to be on the side of "moral".  What is the immorality here?

2) Prices adjust to both the quantity of goods as well as the quantity of money.  This is market dynamics at work.  In what way does this invalidate the honesty of a money?  This would be true of any form of money, even gold.

3) "It is not the value of the currency that should change with demand but the quantity" (demand of what? quantity of what?)

This gets further muddied with the assumption that governments are those with the role of defining money (something they are uniformly poor at doing though out history).

Your proposal seems to re-create the problems of Bretton-Woods.  The problems predate this period, but were strongly exemplified by the accord.
Centralizing this decision is a part of the problem and destroys the value of the many decision makers of the world and replaces it with a central decider.  
The fundamental problem is that when you have a government fixing prices of anything (especially gold or money) the first thing one will buy is the government.  The greatest misfortune there being that the currency of government is so often violence, as these have the monopoly of that within their geographies.
Consider that each holder of the world reserve currency through history has been the supreme military power of its age and you may take the meaning from that.  Supporting that military is typically the downfall of the economic system.

Bitcoin offers a peaceful way out of that burden for the USA in this age of our own time.  This gives the people of the USA the strongest interest in seeing that happen as it is they that bear this expense, as well as the repercussions of it being exercised globally.

[sublime5447]

Simply holding a piece of paper should not enrich you. That is fucked. You didnt do a thing. You didnt innovate you didnt improve you didnt do shit, but sit on your ass and you think you should be rewarded for that?

Look at the way bitcoin is working. Hold and be enriched!   More people want to use the "currency" and the value changes, so for doing nothing you get more purchasing power or if less people want to use the "currency" you lose purchasing power. That is not moral.

It isnt the unit that should change it is the amount of them.

If there where only 10 inches in existence and we wanted to measure a foot we would have to change the length of an inch. So if you had a 6 inch cock it would now be 5 inches.         

[NewLiberty]

Simply holding a piece of paper should not enrich you. That is fucked. You didnt do a thing. You didnt innovate you didnt improve you didnt do shit, but sit on your ass and you think you should be rewarded for that?

Look at the way bitcoin is working. Hold and be enriched!   More people want to use the "currency" and the value changes, so for doing nothing you get more purchasing power or if less people want to use the "currency" you lose purchasing power. That is not moral.

It isnt the unit that should change it is the amount of them.

If there where only 10 inches in existence and we wanted to measure a foot we would have to change the length of an inch. So if you had a 6 inch cock it would now be 5 inches.        

The reward comes from being less foolish than those around you, not from "doing nothing".
What is more important is that the folks buying now, are investing in Bitcoin's development (it is still in beta, you know?)
Using the currency increases its utility as currency, so buy and spend, or mine and spend and what you don't spend (save) improves.
How is this not moral?

Your definition of "moral" is perplexing.  The example of length also perplexing.  What is it you are proposing?

[sublime5447]

honesty!

Read the whole post.

That is how the dollar maintains some price stability. When the demand for currency goes up so does the number of units. The problem is the distribution.

If the dollar was inflated or deflated by a machine and passed out randomly to the members using the currency it would be a moral system.