Bitcoin is NOT a Currency - Etsy Labs, Brooklyn - May 14th

[meanig]

Bitcoin is NOT a Currency

Etsy Labs Brooklyn, May 14th 7pm

Nerds LOVE Bitcoin. It's technologically and cryptographically fascinating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

But is it actually a currency? Kenneth Bromberg, lead programmer of Bloomberg's foreign exchange platform, will explain what actually makes something a "currency", why Bitcoin doesn't fit that definition, and why it therefore doesn't trade on the global currency exchanges.

http://www.meetup.com/BK-Tech-Talks/events/55386052/

Would anyone in the area like to go to this and counter any FUD this guy comes out with?

[1715179743]

1715179743

[1715179743]

1715179743

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

Bitcoin is NOT a Currency

Etsy Labs Brooklyn, May 14th 7pm

Nerds LOVE Bitcoin. It's technologically and cryptographically fascinating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

But is it actually a currency? Kenneth Bromberg, lead programmer of Bloomberg's foreign exchange platform, will explain what actually makes something a "currency", why Bitcoin doesn't fit that definition, and why it therefore doesn't trade on the global currency exchanges.

http://www.meetup.com/BK-Tech-Talks/events/55386052/

Would anyone in the area like to go to this and counter any FUD this guy comes out with?

I'm supposed to be going, but have another Bitcoin event the same time!!!

[proudhon]

Bitcoin is NOT a Currency

Etsy Labs Brooklyn, May 14th 7pm

Nerds LOVE Bitcoin. It's technologically and cryptographically fascinating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

But is it actually a currency? Kenneth Bromberg, lead programmer of Bloomberg's foreign exchange platform, will explain what actually makes something a "currency", why Bitcoin doesn't fit that definition, and why it therefore doesn't trade on the global currency exchanges.

http://www.meetup.com/BK-Tech-Talks/events/55386052/

Would anyone in the area like to go to this and counter any FUD this guy comes out with?

My shooting from the hip response is, first, that whether bitcoin is a currency is a matter of some controversy and is going to depend on exactly what conditions one counts as necessary for something to be a currency, but, of course, this will be addressed by Bromberg and he's going to give us some set of conditions the whole of which bitcoin will not satisfy.  

Second, whether bitcoin does or does not satisfy the conditions of what it is to be a currency it may or may not trade on global currency exchanges.  I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that there are instruments which trade on global currency exchanges which do not satisfy all of the conditions Bromberg will set forth.  Therefore, even if something does not fit the conditions, it doesn't follow that it won't trade on those exchanges.

Third, it isn't clear that bitcoin does not trade on global currency exchanges since it is a matter of controversy whether MtGox and other bitcoin exchanges are not global currency exchanges.

Fourth, let's just grant that bitcoin doesn't satisfy the conditions you set forth for something to be a currency and that, therefore, it doesn't trade on the global currency exchanges.  Therefore...?  While the bitcoin economy is still very, very small, nevertheless, yesterday Fred may have bought a Wii using bitcoin and in that case bitcoin may have performed a function no different than USD.  If that's the case, than for all practical purposes bitcoin was/is a currency.  

Finally, if, for all practical purposes, it performs like a currency, but it doesn't satisfy all the conditions you set forth, then would you be happier if we called it a schmurrency instead of a currency?  A schmurrency, you see, is an instrument which performs, for all practical purposes, just like a currency, but it doesn't satisfy the Brombergian demands of what it is to be a currency.  And, here's a fact:  Some people get along fine using currencies in certain contexts and some people get along fine using schmurrencies in some contexts.  The end.

[cbeast]

Finally, if, for all practical purposes, it performs like a currency, but it doesn't satisfy all the conditions you set forth, then would you be happier if we called it a schmurrency instead of a currency?  A schmurrency, you see, is an instrument which performs, for all practical purposes, just like a currency, but it doesn't satisfy the Brombergian demands of what it is to be a currency.  And, here's a fact:  Some people get along fine using currencies in certain contexts and some people get along fine using schmurrencies in some contexts.  The end.

a bacon sammich and awesome sauce on the side

[meanig]

But is it actually a currency? Kenneth Bromberg, lead programmer of Bloomberg's foreign exchange platform, will explain what actually makes something a "currency", why Bitcoin doesn't fit that definition, and why it therefore doesn't trade on the global currency exchanges.

These so called experts really piss me off. With Bitcoin there are no theories or abstract definitions, only practice. In practice at the moment Bitcoin is being used as a currency. You can use it to buy all sorts of goods and services. Therefore to a certain group of people Bitcoin is a currency. End of story.

[tvbcof]

Bitcoin is NOT a Currency

Etsy Labs Brooklyn, May 14th 7pm

Nerds LOVE Bitcoin. It's technologically and cryptographically fascinating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

But is it actually a currency? Kenneth Bromberg, lead programmer of Bloomberg's foreign exchange platform, will explain what actually makes something a "currency", why Bitcoin doesn't fit that definition, and why it therefore doesn't trade on the global currency exchanges.

http://www.meetup.com/BK-Tech-Talks/events/55386052/

Would anyone in the area like to go to this and counter any FUD this guy comes out with?

I'd be happy if he succeeds.  Classifying Bitcoin as a 'currency' is a significant liability in my opinion.  I figure it's to late, and also that it's too obvious that Bitcoin is, for all intents and purposes, a 'currency', but hopefully Bromberg does his thing well and Bitcoin continues to remain uninteresting to legislation and the like for as long a period of time as possible.

I'm happy to have Bitcoin classified as a 'foodstuff' if it perpetuates the amount of time it and it's economy has to evolve and develop unmolested.

[Micon]

Hi guys.

let's break this down, as I have had this discussion with many humans, from trained economists to the layman.

Is BTC a currency?

1)  let's define currency:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency  -->  "In economics, currency refers to a generally accepted medium of exchange."  

2) I think bitcoin fits this description.

3)  some economists I have talked to run down a list to see if BTC is or isn't a currency.  something like this:
3a)  Is it a store of value?
3b)  can it be easily transferred and traded?
3c) is it accepted by many merchants for goods and services?


I think BTC is a currency at this point.  It probably became something like a micro-currency when it was first traded for actual USD, even if only a few cents, so long as there would have been a handful of people or merchants would accept the BTC for some good or service.   My best guess is early 2011 BTC became a currency, somehow crawling out of the Satoshi-based primordial soup that it came from, up through the ranks of WoW and Second Life, into the flourishing drug trade and now extended to many, many widely varying businesses.

[Vladimir]

Most  people are brainwashed to think that "currency" is an equivalent of "fiat currency", while in reality "fiat currency" is a sub set of "currency". I.e. "Currency" includes "fiat currencies" and "non fiat currencies".

That Kenneth Bromberg, "lead programmer of Bloomberg's", is arguing that Bitcoin is not a "fiat currency" but uses term "currency" because he is as brainwashed as the rest of the population to think that "fiat currency" is the same  thing as "currency" (or just a shill).

Logically, if the above is true, then his argument (whatever it is) is utter nonsense.

This is a logical fallacy. Even if he has proven that Bitcoin is not a "fiat currency", it does not mean that Bitcoin is not a "currency".

Let me give you an example. There are two subjects a man and a woman. One could use word man when he refers to either "a man" or "a woman" (i.e. instead of "a person"), then prove that some "third person" is not "a man" and conclude that the "third person" is not "a person" (and not "a woman"). If true, this means that "a person" is not "a person" and not "a woman" and "not a man". This proves presence of  a logical fallacy.

If anyone will be there on May 14th, Ask him whether "currency" and "fiat currency" are exactly the same thing. If yes, then you will demonstrate that it is not true and crush his faulty logic. If not, then he has to prove that his definition of "currency" is correct and not actually a definition of "fiat currency".

According to wikipedia:

Fiat money is money that derives its value from government regulation or law.

currency refers to a generally accepted medium of exchange.

note that that "fiat currency" is a physical representation of "fiat money".


One valid argument in favour of Bitcoin not being a "currency" is that Bitcoin is not a "medium of exchange". This seems to be obviously false.

Another valid argument would be that Bitcoin is not "generally accepted". But what "generally accepted" means? I would say "generally accepted" means "generally accepted in Bitcoin community". If you want to argue otherwise please prepare to explain how Mongolian Tugriks are not a currency.

[evoorhees]

Finally, if, for all practical purposes, it performs like a currency, but it doesn't satisfy all the conditions you set forth, then would you be happier if we called it a schmurrency instead of a currency?  A schmurrency, you see, is an instrument which performs, for all practical purposes, just like a currency, but it doesn't satisfy the Brombergian demands of what it is to be a currency.  And, here's a fact:  Some people get along fine using currencies in certain contexts and some people get along fine using schmurrencies in some contexts.  The end.

LOL +1

[MarketNeutral]

Bitcoin is a currency, even though many people wish it were not.

[evoorhees]

Freedom is slavery, war is peace, and bitcoin is not currency. Move along, citizen.

[MarketNeutral]

Freedom is slavery, war is peace, and bitcoin is not currency. Move along, citizen.

How deep does the memory hole go?

[Stephen Gornick]

81 people attending.    

 - http://www.meetup.com/BK-Tech-Talks/events/55386052/

Kenneth Bromberg of Bloomberg will explain what actually makes something a "currency", why Bitcoin doesn't fit that definition, and why it therefore doesn't trade on the global currency exchanges.

Oh, but Ven does?
"Ven digital currency to be displayed on Thomson Reuters terminal network"
 - http://www.finextra.com/news/fullstory.aspx?newsitemid=22985

[SaltySpitoon]

I don't think BTC are currency, I just think they are cool things that people want, and trade other cool things for. Oh wait...

[niko]

Bitcoin is NOT a Currency

Etsy Labs Brooklyn, May 14th 7pm

Nerds LOVE Bitcoin. It's technologically and cryptographically fascinating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

But is it actually a currency? Kenneth Bromberg, lead programmer of Bloomberg's foreign exchange platform, will explain what actually makes something a "currency", why Bitcoin doesn't fit that definition, and why it therefore doesn't trade on the global currency exchanges.

http://www.meetup.com/BK-Tech-Talks/events/55386052/

Would anyone in the area like to go to this and counter any FUD this guy comes out with?

I'd be happy if he succeeds.  Classifying Bitcoin as a 'currency' is a significant liability in my opinion.  I figure it's to late, and also that it's too obvious that Bitcoin is, for all intents and purposes, a 'currency', but hopefully Bromberg does his thing well and Bitcoin continues to remain uninteresting to legislation and the like for as long a period of time as possible.

I'm happy to have Bitcoin classified as a 'foodstuff' if it perpetuates the amount of time it and it's economy has to evolve and develop unmolested.

Be careful what you wish for. If the establishment, well, establishes that Bitcoin is not a currency, then it will likely be treated as a commodity, implying a sales tax or VAT whenever you "exchange" it for fiat or barter it for other commodities. This would totally impede the use of Bitcoin.

I tried arguing before that Bitcoin is neither a currency nor a commodity, but simply an accounting system, more precisely a distributed ledger. After some discussion here on the forum, I changed my mind. To me Bitcoin most closely resembles a currency. This is not wishful thinking on my side, but simply a conclusion I've come to.

[cytokine]

It truely doesn't matter what other people think - that's the best thing about Bitcoin.

Krugman can hate us for having a "deflationary" currency, people such as the speaker mentioned in the OP can claim it's not a currency despite it being used as such, and others may proclaim that exchange hacking makes them "have no faith in Bitcoin" ( I have heard that one a lot ).

Despite the logical fallacies in all of these objections to Bitcoin, they are pervasive, and they are very good for those of us who fully grok Bitcoin. The worthy will own Bitcoin and will profit mightily from its ascendance long before the unworthy are forced aboard the train.

So the more people hate on Bitcoin, the more I want to buy for myself while they're cheap

[cytokine]

Freedom is slavery, war is peace, and bitcoin is not currency. Move along, citizen.

+1

[evoorhees]

The worthy will own Bitcoin and will profit mightily from its ascendance long before the unworthy are forced aboard the train.

+1

I actually like the train analogy beyond that - it is as if we're building the world's first train, and all around us people stare and say, "That's not a horse! It won't ever work!" Meanwhile the rails are being laid to their door.

[rjk]

The worthy will own Bitcoin and will profit mightily from its ascendance long before the unworthy are forced aboard the train.

+1

I actually like the train analogy beyond that - it is as if we're building the world's first train, and all around us people stare and say, "That's not a horse! It won't ever work!" Meanwhile the rails are being laid to their door.

lol, reminds me of Noah building the ark. It took him 120 years to build, and during that time there was no rain at all, and he was building it on dry land, so it naturally had its detractors. He was 600+ years old before the actual flood came.

[tvbcof]

The worthy will own Bitcoin and will profit mightily from its ascendance long before the unworthy are forced aboard the train.

+1

I actually like the train analogy beyond that - it is as if we're building the world's first train, and all around us people stare and say, "That's not a horse! It won't ever work!" Meanwhile the rails are being laid to their door.

lol, reminds me of Noah building the ark. It took him 120 years to build, and during that time there was no rain at all, and he was building it on dry land, so it naturally had its detractors. He was 600+ years old before the actual flood came.

And he was even older when he was fucking is daughters.  [review scriptures...]  Oops.  Wrong guy;  I guess that was Lot.   So Noah was even older than 600 years when he was caught 'exposing himself.'  Both were drunk.  Were these guys boozing creepers or what!?!