'Cryptocurrency' a misnomer for Bitcoin?

[100action]

I've been annoyed by the application of the term 'cryptocurrency' to Bitcoin.

There is a distinct difference between Currency and Money and these terms are not interchangeable:

Currencies do not have intrinsic value (i.e. fiat paper money, promissory notes) and by extension, are poor stores of value.  There have been thousands of currencies in existance, all have become worthless because there is no intrinsic value to support the price, instead currencies rely on its users to give it value.  As a consequence many currencies may have fallen with their empires succumbing to regulatory bans, some have died simply because its users did not deem it worthwhile to use and I have no doubt a significant portion are hyperinfalted by their central authorities out of existance.

Money on the other hand has intrinsic value (i.e. gold and silver coins), a gold coin from ancient Eygpt still retains the same purchasing power today.

Bitcoin falls into the category of money, its intrinsic value is supported by its scarcity, verifiability, fungibility, portability, durability and divisbility.  While it might not be 'tangible' and useful for physical use cases like jewerly, it also has benefits Gold does not offer, for example, instant settlement of any amount of 'money' over long distances. Further, no central authority can print bitcoins into existance.  Bitcoin has also become a legitimate store-of-value which can be attributed to its supply cap and emission schedule, its been profitable for 94% of its existance and has not lost its purchasing power which would be consistent with the traditional definition of 'money'.

All-in-all I think it is incorrect to call Bitcoin 'cryptocurrency', it should be 'cyptomoney'.

Thoughts?

[1714857152]

1714857152

[1714857152]

1714857152

[odolvlobo]

I don't understand why some people are hung up on their definitions of "currency" and "money". If you want to have your own definitions for the words, fine. But I don't think other people will reject the commonly accepted meanings in favor of yours.

currency
[ kur-uh n-see, kuhr- ]
noun, plural cur·ren·cies.
1. something that is used as a medium of exchange; money.
...

money
[ muhn-ee ]
noun, plural mon·eys, mon·ies.
1. any circulating medium of exchange, including coins, paper money, and demand deposits.
...

[mindrust]

I bet %99 of everybody here use them interchangeably.

That's the thing with languages. When enough number of people make the same mistake, it is not a mistake anymore. It becomes the truth.

That's what is going on with these words.

[blckhawk]

Bitcoin being considered as money is still up for debate as far as I know. Also, being it as a misnomer, I don't see any problem at all. I don't know why you're so being annoyed from that.

Why I think people consider calling it currency is that it has a units comparable to existing fiat 'currencies' such as USD and such. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has BTC, or satoshi as unit, hence they call it currency. Either way, what's more important is adoption is on its way. And whatever they call it, it's function is much more important.

[100action]

In finance/economics, the two terms are completely different.

Bitcoin has intrinsic value.  The damage and drawbacks created by traditional "currencies" goes against almost every single one of Bitcoin's founding principles.

That is why it is important.  By getting the messaging through that it is MONEY and not CURRENCY will make a bigger impact on people, particularly people with financial/economics backgrounds.

[Jating]

Do we really need to complicate things here?

I mean 90% of people in crypto sphere are non-technical person, so it doesn't make sense to be very precise in our jargon or lingo here. If A and B individuals are talking and understand each other whether they used the term crypto-currency or crypto-money then it's enough.

[Darker45]

Money is currency and currency is money. That is how the majority of the people treat them. If you are a perfectionist and you feel uneasy every time the word currency is interchanged with money and vice versa, then I guess you will be the one to adjust. You cannot just ask the rest of the established world to follow your preference and the strict pedantic meanings of those words which are in the end immaterial to its growth, development, and adoption. For me personally, I don't care whether Bitcoin is really a currency or a money for as long as it is a medium of payment which is acceptable by both parties. Also, that intrinsic value of Bitcoin is still highly debatable until now. 

[hosseinimr93]

Honestly, I hadn't ever thought about differences between money and currency and I was one of those people usually use money and currency interchangeably. You made me google "differences between money and currency".
But I still don't know we should call bitcoin a kind of money or a currency. For me, bitcoin is a money and a currency as well. Because I am not sure bitcoin has intrinsic value. Bitcoin has value as long as the community support it. We all know bitcoin's value is very volatile and can drop to zero if people no longer support it.  

[aardvark15]

But I think Bitcoin is more than just money. It is a method of sending money as well.  A person could only use it like PayPal so it can’t really be defined just as money.

[ChrisPop]

As the definition says currency means a medium of exchange. While Bitcoin can be easily used as a means of payment it is logical to use the term "currency". The cryptocurrency doesn't reflect the "store of value" characteristic of Bitcoin though. Gold is in the commodities category so maybe we should include BTC in that category.

[odolvlobo]

In finance/economics, the two terms are completely different.

Bitcoin has intrinsic value.  The damage and drawbacks created by traditional "currencies" goes against almost every single one of Bitcoin's founding principles.

That is why it is important.  By getting the messaging through that it is MONEY and not CURRENCY will make a bigger impact on people, particularly people with financial/economics backgrounds.

Ok, here are the definitions from Investopedia. They imply to me that "money" is a technology, and a "currency" is a specific manifestation of that technology, but I see no distinction based on intrinsic value.

Money is an economic unit that functions as a generally recognized medium of exchange for transactional purposes in an economy. Money provides the service of reducing transaction cost, namely the double coincidence of wants. Money originates in the form of a commodity, having a physical property to be adopted by market participants as a medium of exchange. Money can be: market-determined, officially issued legal tender or fiat moneys, money substitutes and fiduciary media, and electronic cryptocurrencies.

Currency is a medium of exchange for goods and services. In short, it's money, in the form of paper or coins, usually issued by a government and generally accepted at its face value as a method of payment.
Currency is the primary medium of exchange in the modern world, having long ago replaced bartering as a means of trading goods and services.
In the 21st century, a new form of currency has entered the vocabulary, the virtual currency. Virtual currencies such as bitcoins have no physical existence or government backing and are traded and stored in electronic form.

Perhaps you can convince us that your definitions are those used in finance and economics by providing a source.

[squatter]

I've been annoyed by the application of the term 'cryptocurrency' to Bitcoin.

There is a distinct difference between Currency and Money and these terms are not interchangeable:

Currencies do not have intrinsic value (i.e. fiat paper money, promissory notes) and by extension, are poor stores of value.

Money on the other hand has intrinsic value (i.e. gold and silver coins), a gold coin from ancient Eygpt still retains the same purchasing power today.

All-in-all I think it is incorrect to call Bitcoin 'cryptocurrency', it should be 'cyptomoney'.

Currency just implies medium of exchange, general acceptance. Money constitutes a larger umbrella term covering mediums of exchange, units of account, and stores of value. Bitcoin is (or at least could be) all three, so money is a better description for it. I agree with you there.

You have to admit though, "cryptocurrency" has a certain ring to it that "cryptomoney" doesn't. The term "cryptocurrency" probably caught on because it's euphonious. It rolls off the tongue.

[jhontwis]

There is a confusion in bitcoin definitions. Bitcoin is not just money. Bitcoin is not only digital money. Bitcoin is encrypted digital money. Crytocurrency is the most appropriate definition. The idea of secrecy and decentralization is Bitcoin's basic philosophy.

[abdobe]

I've been annoyed by the application of the term 'cryptocurrency' to Bitcoin.

There is a distinct difference between Currency and Money and these terms are not interchangeable:

Currencies do not have intrinsic value (i.e. fiat paper money, promissory notes) and by extension, are poor stores of value.  There have been thousands of currencies in existance, all have become worthless because there is no intrinsic value to support the price, instead currencies rely on its users to give it value.  As a consequence many currencies may have fallen with their empires succumbing to regulatory bans, some have died simply because its users did not deem it worthwhile to use and I have no doubt a significant portion are hyperinfalted by their central authorities out of existance.

Money on the other hand has intrinsic value (i.e. gold and silver coins), a gold coin from ancient Eygpt still retains the same purchasing power today.

Bitcoin falls into the category of money, its intrinsic value is supported by its scarcity, verifiability, fungibility, portability, durability and divisbility.  While it might not be 'tangible' and useful for physical use cases like jewerly, it also has benefits Gold does not offer, for example, instant settlement of any amount of 'money' over long distances. Further, no central authority can print bitcoins into existance.  Bitcoin has also become a legitimate store-of-value which can be attributed to its supply cap and emission schedule, its been profitable for 94% of its existance and has not lost its purchasing power which would be consistent with the traditional definition of 'money'.

All-in-all I think it is incorrect to call Bitcoin 'cryptocurrency', it should be 'cyptomoney'.

Thoughts?

Who cares what Bitcoin is called? I’m already used to the term cryptocurrency and digital currency, maybe it's just your personal perception and no more

[CryptoBry]

I really don't care if other people may call Bitcoin as cryptocurrency, money, currency, digital gold or maybe cryptomoney. The most important thing is that we can use it anytime we wanted to and we are participating in something that is slowly revolutionizing the way we are viewing money, banking and finance. I believe that pioneers of Bitcoin referred to Bitcoin as cryptocurrency and even if we are to call it by another term it won't be making a big difference at all so I am sticking with the original term and concept.

[bitvalak]

I've been annoyed by the application of the term 'cryptocurrency' to Bitcoin.

There is a distinct difference between Currency and Money and these terms are not interchangeable:

Currencies do not have intrinsic value (i.e. fiat paper money, promissory notes) and by extension, are poor stores of value.  There have been thousands of currencies in existance, all have become worthless because there is no intrinsic value to support the price, instead currencies rely on its users to give it value.  As a consequence many currencies may have fallen with their empires succumbing to regulatory bans, some have died simply because its users did not deem it worthwhile to use and I have no doubt a significant portion are hyperinfalted by their central authorities out of existance.

Money on the other hand has intrinsic value (i.e. gold and silver coins), a gold coin from ancient Eygpt still retains the same purchasing power today.

Bitcoin falls into the category of money, its intrinsic value is supported by its scarcity, verifiability, fungibility, portability, durability and divisbility.  While it might not be 'tangible' and useful for physical use cases like jewerly, it also has benefits Gold does not offer, for example, instant settlement of any amount of 'money' over long distances. Further, no central authority can print bitcoins into existance.  Bitcoin has also become a legitimate store-of-value which can be attributed to its supply cap and emission schedule, its been profitable for 94% of its existance and has not lost its purchasing power which would be consistent with the traditional definition of 'money'.

All-in-all I think it is incorrect to call Bitcoin 'cryptocurrency', it should be 'cyptomoney'.

Thoughts?

This is just a matter of basic understanding, I guess it doesn't really matter because what you are discussing is money and currency. Cryptocurrency is all types of altcoin, including Bitcoin. That's clear.
Everything in this forum is not all graduates of economics or financial scholars, so a simple term like that I think does not need to be debated too long.
The important thing is we can take advantage of the altitude of each altcoin for everyday life.

[100action]

In finance/economics, the two terms are completely different.

Bitcoin has intrinsic value.  The damage and drawbacks created by traditional "currencies" goes against almost every single one of Bitcoin's founding principles.

That is why it is important.  By getting the messaging through that it is MONEY and not CURRENCY will make a bigger impact on people, particularly people with financial/economics backgrounds.

Ok, here are the definitions from Investopedia. They imply to me that "money" is a technology, and a "currency" is a specific manifestation of that technology, but I see no distinction based on intrinsic value.

Money is an economic unit that functions as a generally recognized medium of exchange for transactional purposes in an economy. Money provides the service of reducing transaction cost, namely the double coincidence of wants. Money originates in the form of a commodity, having a physical property to be adopted by market participants as a medium of exchange. Money can be: market-determined, officially issued legal tender or fiat moneys, money substitutes and fiduciary media, and electronic cryptocurrencies.

Currency is a medium of exchange for goods and services. In short, it's money, in the form of paper or coins, usually issued by a government and generally accepted at its face value as a method of payment.
Currency is the primary medium of exchange in the modern world, having long ago replaced bartering as a means of trading goods and services.
In the 21st century, a new form of currency has entered the vocabulary, the virtual currency. Virtual currencies such as bitcoins have no physical existence or government backing and are traded and stored in electronic form.

Perhaps you can convince us that your definitions are those used in finance and economics by providing a source.

These definitions are proving my point?

Currency is an expression/denomination of money in the form of paper or coins.

Also here you go, a much better souce:

Money: A medium of exchange that functions as a unit of account, a store of value, etc

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199229741.001.0001/acref-9780199229741-e-2370?rskey=aDLoqH&result=3181

Currency:  Any kind of money that is in circulation in an economy.  Anything that functions as a medium of exchange including coins, bank notes, cheques etc.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199229741.001.0001/acref-9780199229741-e-895?rskey=dcjCKo&result=1161

Currency has no requirement to be a store-of-value.  A store-of-value can only be achieved by an asset that has an underlying intrinsic value like bitcoin.

[figmentofmyass]

Currency has no requirement to be a store-of-value.

but it can be one. gold/silver/metal coins are an example of stores of value that also function as currency.

A store-of-value can only be achieved by an asset that has an underlying intrinsic value like bitcoin.

i would argue that bitcoin has no underlying intrinsic value. you can't consume it, you can't turn it into something useful, it has no industrial/medical use. bitcoin only has value because people use it. if no one used it, bitcoins would be worthless, so the value must not be intrinsic.

[piebeyb]

it's just a conclusion why you feel disturbed, I don't think it's just you who are bothered by that many people out there, even you see news on tv and news on online sites, do you also blame them for using cryptocurrency, what's the meaning of a name, whether cryptomoney and cryptocurrency everyone also understands and understands the meaning, but does not feel disturbed, maybe this is used to simplify it, because there may also be language differences, so don't ever change what is inherent in their minds, just understand and respect

[BeManga]

I've been annoyed by the application of the term 'cryptocurrency' to Bitcoin.

There is a distinct difference between Currency and Money and these terms are not interchangeable:

Currencies do not have intrinsic value (i.e. fiat paper money, promissory notes) and by extension, are poor stores of value.  There have been thousands of currencies in existance, all have become worthless because there is no intrinsic value to support the price, instead currencies rely on its users to give it value.  As a consequence many currencies may have fallen with their empires succumbing to regulatory bans, some have died simply because its users did not deem it worthwhile to use and I have no doubt a significant portion are hyperinfalted by their central authorities out of existance.

Money on the other hand has intrinsic value (i.e. gold and silver coins), a gold coin from ancient Eygpt still retains the same purchasing power today.

Bitcoin falls into the category of money, its intrinsic value is supported by its scarcity, verifiability, fungibility, portability, durability and divisbility.  While it might not be 'tangible' and useful for physical use cases like jewerly, it also has benefits Gold does not offer, for example, instant settlement of any amount of 'money' over long distances. Further, no central authority can print bitcoins into existance.  Bitcoin has also become a legitimate store-of-value which can be attributed to its supply cap and emission schedule, its been profitable for 94% of its existance and has not lost its purchasing power which would be consistent with the traditional definition of 'money'.

All-in-all I think it is incorrect to call Bitcoin 'cryptocurrency', it should be 'cyptomoney'.

Thoughts?

in my opinion, it doesn't matter if you call it cryptomoney or cryptocurrency because it has an identical meaning
money and currency both serve as a payment method and if you read the meaning of money and currency
you will see that money is currency and currency is money