Why bitcoin isn't currency.

[crumbs]

...

Money directly increases productivity. And money is a good.

Money sure is good, but it doesn't improve productivity.  If it does, US Mint should spend more of it on printing presses & print more, directly increasing productivity

Money is good. But my comment was that money is a good.

As for increasing productivity by spending more on printing presses to print more money:  http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-100-bill-costs-60-more-to-produce-2013-10-08

Please be concise, the singular for "goods" is uncommon, and must be preceded by an article.

To further clarify, money is not goods.  That's simply false & not open to debate.

I have no idea what you're talking about. "Money is goods" isn't even grammatically correct. Money is a good.

(Money is good, too. But the word "good" in that sentence is being used as an adjective, not a noun.)

No.  "Money is goods" is grammatically correct, to find  examples of usage please see here.   Though any authoritative definition of money will tell you that it is not.
Talk about throwing spaghetti against a wall

[sublime5447]

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.

Money is nothing like "a unit in the system of measurement for length": it measures the exchange value of whichever it prices, rather than any of its objective properties - exchange value is neither objective nor constant.

Right but we have to measure subjective entities against objective ones. Like the subjective unit of a byte is equal to a certain number of charged particles.

We cant measure opinions against opinions we have to measure opinions against facts. If we want accurate measurement.

That is what we have been doing for the last 40+ years measuring an opinion against an opinion. We have been measuring length with an inch that changes size. It is like when we measure length with a human foot.  

[crumbs]

Theoretically, some people can get rich without others getting poor.  This trick, of course, is impossible if by "rich" you mean "money rich," and the currency in question is deflationary

It's not just theoretical, it has been the standard throughout almost all of history.

And if by "rich" you mean having more units of a particular currency, then you don't get "rich" by "hoarding" units of currency either. So obviously that's not what you meant.

Throughout the whole of history, money remained inflationary.  That's why

[crumbs]

...
How on earth are you defining "rich"? You seem to have your cause and effect backward.

...This trick, of course, is impossible if by "rich" you mean "money rich," and the currency in question is deflationary

Bro, do you even read

[deisik]

I responded to a claim the "Money directly increases productivity."  [boldface mine]
And that's why i ask that the thread is kept tidy

I think it is still valid to say that money directly increases productivity

No.  A direct relationship is X=Function of Y.  In other words, changing the amount of money in circulation should directly affect productivity.  There is no direct relationship.

Strictly speaking (was it you who insisted on being precise?), it's just a matter of choosing a transformation function (your F). Whatever you consider "direct" can be further detailed into multiple intermediate steps, so finally it cannot be called "direct". And vice versa, whatever you called "indirect" may be transformed to a direct relationship by choosing a proper F

Actually, you are trying to save your position by clinging to the things which are insignificant in the context. First of all, it was not a question of changing the amount of money in circulation for money to change productivity (yes, you get your attitude mirrored back). Secondly, I could just propose to compare two economies, i.e money economy and economy without money (barter economy). Would a productivity boost in the first case be a direct result of introducing money into the economy?

[crumbs]

...
The direct object, "goods", is plural, but the verb, "is", is singular.

And while using a google search doesn't prove grammatical correctness: "money is goods" = 12,400 results; "money are goods" = 14,700 results; "money is a good" = 66,900,000 results.

As for authoritative definitions, why don't you give me your "authoritative definition" of "money" and "good".

Make sure you don't pick http://economics.about.com/od/termsbeginningwithm/g/money.htm ("Money is a good that acts as a medium of exchange in transactions.")

Lol, your "authoritative definition" is about.com?  I think my cat posted that one
Try something easy, like wikip, and then follow the citations to authoritative works.
Regarding use of "money is goods" -- alternative usages being more common doesn't make mine incorrect.  That's fail logic.  Finding that "bread and butter" is less commonly used than "buttered bread" doesn't make the first incorrect.  "Money is good," otoh, is blatantly incorrect.  Laerne to haz grammarz b4 U grammarnazi

[crumbs]

I responded to a claim the "Money directly increases productivity."  [boldface mine]
And that's why i ask that the thread is kept tidy

I think it is still valid to say that money directly increases productivity

No.  A direct relationship is X=Function of Y.  In other words, changing the amount of money in circulation should directly affect productivity.  There is no direct relationship.

Strictly speaking (was it you who insisted on being precise?), it's just a matter of choosing a transformation function (your F). Whatever you consider "direct" can be further detailed into multiple intermediate steps, so finally it cannot be called "direct". And vice versa, whatever you called "indirect" may be transformed to a direct relationship by choosing a proper F

Actually, you are trying to save your position by clinging to the things which are insignificant in the context. First of all, it was not a question of changing the amount of money in circulation for money to change productivity (yes, you get your attitude mirrored back). Secondly, I could just propose to compare two economies , i.e money economy and economy without money (barter economy). Would a productivity boost in the first case be a direct result of introducing money into the economy?

Regardless of what F is, if F is a function, Y must be calculable from the value of X.  Curve-fitting for every point is not an option, a function must have predictability & verifiability to be meaningful.  Otherwise, "direct" becomes meaningless & should simply be factored out of the statement.  

So it is you who is resorting to petty semantics to obfuscate an obvious point -- that there is no direct relationship between money and productivity.  There is no correlation (if there is, please explain what you mean), and there's provably no causation.  When there is no causation, the relationship is indirect, i.e. money is one of the many factors at play.

[deisik]

If you expect to influence the market, choosing not to trade is a bad choice, unless you expect that your lack of participation would collapse the market.

So you implicitly suggested that anyone would want to influence the market (either by participating or abstaining from participation)?

When viewed from the perspective of voting, it is unreasonable to expect that your lack of participation would collapse the status quo.

Now you assume that collapsing the status quo was the reason behind the lack of participation? How come?

Basic.

Basic what? Your implicit assumptions as the only option?

[deisik]

Regardless of what F is, if F is a function, Y must be calculable from the value of X.  Curve-fitting for every point is not an option, a function must have predictability & verifiability to be meaningful.  Otherwise, "direct" becomes a meaningless & should simply be factored out of the statement. 
So it is you who is resorting to petty semantics to obfuscate an obvious point -- that there is no direct relationship between money and productivity.

If Y is productivity (some number) and X is amount of money in circulation (another number) you can always find a function which will show you "direct" connection. I don't really get what you're arguing against

And now you blame me of resorting to petty semantics, lol 

[crumbs]

If you expect to influence the market, choosing not to trade is a bad choice, unless you expect that your lack of participation would collapse the market.

So you implicitly suggested that anyone would want to influence the market (either by participating or abstaining from participation)?

No. I explicitly state if one wishes to influence the market, not participating is a bad choice, unless said lack of participation is expected to influence the market in itself. (unless the act of abstaining is an act in itself) 

When viewed from the perspective of voting, it is unreasonable to expect that your lack of participation would collapse the status quo.

Now you assume that collapsing the status quo was the reason behind the lack of participation? How come?

I stated that it is "unreasonable to expect that your lack of participation would collapse the status quo."  There are no assumptions, simply a statement expressing an if/then relationship.  If you feel that it's a non sequitur, you can point that out.  If you feel the people who do not vote are happy with the way things are, then what the heck are we talking about, amiright?
 

[crumbs]

Regardless of what F is, if F is a function, Y must be calculable from the value of X.  Curve-fitting for every point is not an option, a function must have predictability & verifiability to be meaningful.  Otherwise, "direct" becomes a meaningless & should simply be factored out of the statement.  
So it is you who is resorting to petty semantics to obfuscate an obvious point -- that there is no direct relationship between money and productivity.

If Y is productivity (some number) and X is amount of money in circulation (another number) you can always find a function which will show you "direct" connection. I don't really get what you're arguing against

And now you blame me of resorting to petty semantics, lol  

In that case, the word "direct" is unenlightening -- a tautology, adding no information to a statement.
If it does, what do you see it as adding?
Are you implying that OP spews meaningless verbiage?

[shawshankinmate37927]

You don't have to print money to manipulate the market, but you do have to have a stranglehold on the exchanges.  Peer-to-peer decentralized exchanges will allow people to route around the manipulation.

I don't vote, so no one in the government represents me or my interests.  That's why I think it is accurate for me to refer to them as "them".  I don't play their game.

You don't need to achieve a stranglehold on exchanges to have a stranglehold on the market.  I'm not quite sure what you mean, but do you feel burnside (of BTCT), for instance, was unjustly manipulating his exchange?  From what i know, he appears to be a pretty upstanding guy.  So, if you can clarify...

As far as you choosing not to vote, that's neither here nor there.  That's like saying the free market is unfair because you chose not to trade.  

I wasn't referring to BTCT or any other Bitcoin related exchange specifically.  But, if more and more people continue to convert their fiat into bitcoins, then TPTB will use every means at their disposal to prevent the escape from fiat, including trying to suppress and manipulate the exchanges with HFT and derivatives, like they do in the gold and silver markets.

Edit: or just shut down the Bitcoin exchanges entirely...

[NewLiberty]

Is it the opinion of the OP that....

“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependent on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.”
-Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

Applies equally well to Bitcoin?

[deisik]

In that case, the word "direct" is unenlightening -- a tautology, adding no information to a statement.
If it does, what do you see it as adding?

It was you who denied "direct" money influence on productivity. I've already told you that almost any effect (especially in economics) which you consider as direct can in fact be divided into a chain of smaller cause-and-effect links (and every link can be subdivided even further, if necessary). In real life, it is rather a matter of convention as to what regard direct and what not. Ultimately, it depends on the scale in which you consider some phenomenon (macro/micro)

Then you switched the theme to a functional dependence as a compulsory condition for "directness" and I've given you a very simple example of two economies (money vs barter) where money influence on productivity (or absence thereof) is evident and can even be described by a simple function taking just two values as an argument and giving you productivity as a result. This example you successfully ignored, though it proves that the very existence of some form of money in circulation is an important factor for productivity on macroscale. An assumption that the magnitude of this influence is dependent on the amount of money in circulation is evident and very well logically founded. The productivity increases with more money in circulation up to some optimal level beyond which injecting even more money can do more harm than good

[deisik]

Are you implying that OP spews meaningless verbiage?

I don't understand what you're referring to

[crumbs]

Are you implying that OP spews meaningless verbiage?

I don't understand what you're referring to

Sorry, i meant the guy who i was replying to -- not you. 

[sublime5447]

Is it the opinion of the OP that....

“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependent on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.”
-Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

Applies equally well to Bitcoin?

Yes.

The networks is already centralizing. The machines will get so big and powerful the network will get largely centralized those that were enriched by the adoption of the currency will use the their influence to consolidate the power.   

[crumbs]

Is it the opinion of the OP that....

“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependent on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.”
-Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

Applies equally well to Bitcoin?

So many great quotes from the moneymen of that period.
I was thinking more contemporary:
"...is the ideal product... the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy." --WSB

That's the sort of dedication we're looking for

[deisik]

Sorry, i meant the guy who i was replying to -- not you. 

Lol, I reread what the OP wrote on the first page, it is garbage, simply put mildly speaking

[Melbustus]

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 



 

Did the dollar ever fit your definition? From your "no longer" statement, I assume you'd say that it did under the gold standard. But that's just a few applications of the transitive property away from the same issue... What's an ounce of gold? Ok, it's 8.53x10^22 gold atoms. Great, what's a gold atom...79 protons, 117 neutrons. What's a proton? Some up-quarks, down-quarks...etc. They're all mental approximations/constructs. We've just found them to be incredibly useful. Bitcoin is no different. The abstract construct of there being 2.1 quadrillion units, defined as a mining algorithm, is just fine. Quarks are definable by math as well. Physics, hence reality, essentially reduces to math.

But that's all semantics. However, if you want to make your argument, you have to pay attention to semantics, since that's what your argument is.

It sounds like your issue is with the lack of physicality of bitcoin. You'd be satisfied if we were able to define bitcoin in terms of something physical (nevermind my argument above that that also becomes abstract at its core). If that's the issue, fine. I say it's irrelevant.

Various things and systems have been used for exchange throughout human history. What does the job well in a given time period for a given culture has varied tremendously. Bitcoin dramatically reduces the friction of exchange in modern times, and that meets the fundamental purpose of money, and practical definitions of currency, perfectly.