Why bitcoin isn't currency.

[sublime5447]

Gold is a unit. It is definable in objective terms and is a constant.

[greenlion]

These kind of self-absorbed, sophormic, and intellectually-meritless conversations belong in a dorm room where dummies who just took an Introduction to Philosophy or Economics can smoke cannabis and make meaningless sounds with their mouths to impress their equally sheltered peers!

[crumbs]

So out of all this rant:

Common slang for currency - money. End of story.

Money is the units of the measure of value that not only represent value but also have value. Examples would be gold,silver,oil, salt

Like the units of the measure of length that not only represent length but also have length. Examples would be inch worn, barleycorn, ruler, cubit

Currency is the units of the measure of value that has no value but represents value. Examples would be a promise, bitcoin, digits in a computer, bonds

Like the units of the measure of length that have no length themselves but represents length.    Examples would be  inch, meter, mile.

When we are talking about money we are talking about inch worms when we are talking about currency we are talking about inches. 

Not really.  When i ask a friend if he has any money (got twenty bucks?), i don't particularly care what form it's in -- if he has 20 one dollar bills, two tens, or a single twenty.  I'm looking for a specific value, not a specific number of bills.

If i needed tangible units (got any quarters?), i'm specifically interested in the physical tokens.

Not sure if you're interested in semantics & just want more precise definitions (in that case you seem to be widening them by calling oil "money"), or if i'm missing your point.

[deisik]

Gold is not a quantity.

"One ounce of gold" is a quantity. "One ounce of gold" is a unit.

So is "one BTC of bitcoin", though.

Maybe he was referring to gold being physical substance, thus being definable not only in abstract units ("one BTC of bitcoin") but also by some real "yardstick" (e.g. in units of weight)? Though this still doesn't make his stance on money more valid... 

[AnonyMint]

Gold is not a quantity.

"One ounce of gold" is a quantity. "One ounce of gold" is a unit.

So is "one BTC of bitcoin", though.

Maybe he was referring to gold being physical substance, thus being definable not only in abstract terms ("one BTC of bitcoin") but also by some real "yardstick" (e.g. in terms of weight)? Though this still doesn't make his stance on money more valid... 

What does make it more valid is the intrinsic value of bitCON is not as a currency, but as a speculative ponzi scheme. This is mathematically unarguable.

[deisik]

What does make it more valid is the intrinsic value of bitCON is not as a currency, but as a speculative ponzi scheme. This is mathematically unarguable.

I didn't get your point, please expand more on this 

[crumbs]

Gold is not a quantity.

"One ounce of gold" is a quantity. "One ounce of gold" is a unit.

So is "one BTC of bitcoin", though.

Maybe he was referring to gold being physical substance, thus being definable not only in abstract terms ("one BTC of bitcoin") but also by some real "yardstick" (e.g. in terms of weight)? Though this still doesn't make his stance on money more valid...  

What does make it more valid is the intrinsic value of bitCON is not as a currency, but as a speculative ponzi scheme. This is mathematically unarguable.

The Bitcoin Wiki differentiates bitcoin from a Ponzi scheme thusly: "In a Ponzi Scheme, the founders persuade investors that they’ll profit. Bitcoin does not make such a guarantee."

Good enough for me.

[deisik]

I'd say he's just plain old confused (or dishonest, but I'll apply Hanlon's razor on this one).

Yes, bitcoins are not physical substances. But that's not part of the definition of money or currency.

Strictly speaking, he is not even correct on the units which are defined by some physical metric. If we take his own example ("an inch is not real but it is definable"), it turns out that this very metric of space (length) is not constant but increasing with time through the expansion of the Universe (i.e. the scale of space itself is changed). So his inch is by no means fixed or definable...

[darkmule]

These kind of self-absorbed, sophormic, and intellectually-meritless conversations belong in a dorm room where dummies who just took an Introduction to Philosophy or Economics can smoke cannabis and make meaningless sounds with their mouths to impress their equally sheltered peers!

I agree.

Now quit bogarting that joint, motherfucker, and pass it.

[junshong]

Kind of agree. The amount of people using it is what that affects the price.

[sdp]

These kind of self-absorbed, sophormic, and intellectually-meritless conversations belong in a dorm room where dummies who just took an Introduction to Philosophy or Economics can smoke cannabis and make meaningless sounds with their mouths to impress their equally sheltered peers!

+1
"Bitcoin is not a currency", the "US dollar is not a currency".  What rubbish.

[collapse]

Bitcoin it's not money at 100%, because it's not fully portable, like gold, usd,eur, ..., requires Internet and specific software and hardware.

I am using "redhat" since 1998. In 2010 I tried it, but the error https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=319901 said NO,  in 2011 again NO, and in 2012 I built custom Openssl,..., 2013** error persist, legal problem in Openssl license.

Bitcoin could be cash, Internet FIAT cash that you can change for FIAT money or a better money, it's only part of money concept. But for the moment it's only speculative market with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect

**:https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021898

[deisik]

Bitcoin it's not money at 100%, because it's not fully portable, like gold, usd,eur, ..., requires Internet and specific software and hardware.

Everything you said in the quoted part is fully applicable to any non-cash operations and payments...
Would you call currency in non-cash circulation as being not 100% money?

[sublime5447]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/bitcoin-is-no-longer-a-currency/274859/

It is not currency!

[sublime5447]

There is no such thing as intrinsic value. The theory of intrinsic value says that value comes from the properties of the item. It is never the item that gives things value it is a construct of someone or somethings mind. 


When people talk about intrinsic value they are talking about objective market value. They are talking about things that are factually valuable.  The is only the subjective value of the individual and the objective value of the market. There is no such thing as intrinsic value. 

[deisik]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/bitcoin-is-no-longer-a-currency/274859/

It is not currency!

Yeah, they said so in the news...

[sublime5447]

People are waking up to the realization it is not currency. When they realize that then they will say what is bitcoin? and the answer will be a digital collectible. 

[deisik]

There is no such thing as intrinsic value. The theory of intrinsic value says that value comes from the properties of the item. It is never the item that gives things value it is a construct of someone or somethings mind. 

When people talk about intrinsic value they are talking about objective market value . They are talking about things that are factually valuable. The is only the subjective value of the individual and the objective value of the market. There is no such thing as intrinsic value. 

What you call here (and there) as the subjective value of the individual has long been known under the name "utility", or rather marginal utility...
The objective value of the market you refer to is known under the name "price", or rather relative price...

[BadBitcoin (James Sutton)]

prepare yourself


A bitcoin is the value of the total amount of labour done by computing devices over the duration from 2009 - 2140 to produce one of 21 million bitcoins.

this means that 1 bitcoin = 1/21million*(avg_total_mining_energy_consumption_per_year_converted_to_gold+mining_equipment_cost_per_year_converted_to_gold+miscellaneous_cost_per_year_converted_to_gold)*(131 years), and this has the units of gold weight in kg.

[deisik]

A bitcoin is the value of the total amount of labour done by computing devices over the duration from 2009 - 2140 to produce one of 21 million bitcoins.

this means that 1 bitcoin = 1/21million*(avg_total_mining_energy_consumption_per_year_converted_to_gold+mining_equipment_cost_per_year_converted_to_gold+miscellaneous_cost_per_year_converted_to_gold)*(131 years), and this has the units of gold weight in kg.

What you here refer to as the value of the total amount of labor is known as "cost", or unit cost