Topic: : - page 3. (Read 12716 times)

personally, i'd like to see someone like you rant about how Bitcoin is "backed" vs. being tangible.  that argument will resonate more with skeptics if you can make a convincing case.

This proof issue is a huge comparative advantage for bitcoin. In fact, I would assert that Bitcoin's ability to solve the double spend issue is the great innovation and only reason bitcoins have attained any-type of material value.

I think you are conflating two issues unnecessarily: tangibility and scarcity. An item, either physical or informational, can be tangible, or in other words be real, and yet not be scarce.

And before we start talking about and discussing property rights with regards to bitcoins I think it is important that we establish that bitcoins are real, or in other words, tangible.

interesting.. more thoughts:

on the definition of tangibility regarding money: Tangible objects can be in possession by someone (differs from ownership). bitcoins can also be in possession (by knowledge of key). possession in the sense that one can deny access to the object by others (if he has the means). the object can be passed on to a new owner.

I wouldn't call bitcoins "transactions" as chodpaba did, but I think I know what he's aiming at: there is no "bitcoin" per se.
"having a bitcoin" means to possess the key that allows transfer of "ownership" of - basically - nothing (a scarce specific "nothing" to add to the confusion). So like a tangible object, one can possess bitcoin in in the sense that one can deny access to it by other and one can pass it to a new owner (make a transaction).

@chodpaba: thanks for the insight with the proof of transaction, that's something I hadn't thought about when comparing bitcoin to other commodity moneys.

;tldr: "tangibility" regarding money == "possessibility"

funny etymological fact: the latin verb "tangere" (which "tangible" derives from) can also mean: "to cost". funny etymological fact 2: the italian verb "tangere" can also mean "come home to". in that sense: "come home to papa, little bitcoins!"

One major difference between electronic files and bitcoins is that electronic files can be copied.  If I make a PDF copy of bitcoin magazine without paying for it then Vladimir would not suffer as much as if I stole all the physical copies of bitcoin magazine from him since he needs to mail those out and they cost money to print.  (Yes you can use a photocopy machine to copy the magazine too but there is cost to do this.  An electronic copy takes no effort and little or no monetary value to copy.)

If bitcoins are tangible then tangibility needs to be redefined such that tangible objects cannot be easily copied.  You cannot copy a bitcoin.  A bitcoin is tangible because, in addition to being clear and definite, it cannot be duplicated (easily).

Maybe "bitcoin" is tangible but "a bitcoin" is not.  If you send a bitcoin to my wallet (that has other bitcoins in it), I can't send you that same "coin" back... a bitcoin is not a chunk of bits like a .pdf file, a wallet or the blockchain.

Nope, I like it


Probably not very useful for the categorization of moneys, yet interesting to think about. A difference (between "corporeal" and "real") might be that a "bitcoin" exists as many copies not in exactly one location. Maybe this is a slippery slope to the mind/matter discussion, so I don't know wether we should continue along these lines

Agree that bitcoins should be considered "tangible" for economic-discussion purposes (not so much for, say, throwing them in the air or something, though).

But if you want to get literal, you could simply argue that the distinction between things that exist physically and things that exist as information is artificial, since matter is really just uber-dense energy (e=mc^2, after all). So, something that exists as magnetic alignment or capacitive charge somewhere is just as real as a baseball. Still consists of energy packed in one way or another, just not as much of it total. Is that a meaningful/useful argument, though? Meh.

The word tangible means 'perceptible by touch' or 'cear and definite; real' but the etymology for tangibility has more to do with mental sense than corporeal status. It appears to be used to connote realness as opposed to fantasy, delusion or illusion.

I have been thinking a lot about tangibility and how it applies in monetary science in an attempt to formulate a rule or theorem.

In the Information Age I think organized information, information objects, can have properties of tangibility just as clear and definite, or real, as physical objects. Thus, for something to be real it does not have to be corporeal.

The Bitcoin Magazine exists in both a corporeal (paper) and incorporeal (PDF) form. Both are both clear and definite thus they are equally real. One is an information object the other a physical object. But this distinguishment does not go to tangibility as they both exist in the real world and are not figments of imagination, fantasy, delusion or illusion. We would agree that the Bitcoin Magazine Issue #1 is tangible, regardless of of paper or PDF form, and flying fire breathing black dragons are not tangible.

A bitcoin is real because it has clear and definite organization of information therefore making it an information object in the real world and is not a figment of imagination, fantasy, delusion or illusion. Therefore, a bitcoin is tangible.

Anyone up for logically attacking the assertions?

I would argue bitcoin is tangible for the purposes of the argument presented in the sense that you can lock it away from access to third parties ("physically own it"). "tangible" == "not paper" == "no third party risk".

Maybe it'd be better to say: "Anything that doesn't involve some kind of a promise and can be owned unconditionally will go up" instead?

Unfortunately, in some kind of an economic meltdown situation, bitcoin might become generally unusable for a while. Temporarily nonexistant.

I believe that if there is more money printing the price of EVERYTHING tangible will go up. All currencies value will go down.

Gold is tangible...will go up

Bitcoin not tangible but has gold like properties...kind of a wild card.

nice analogy except Corzine is more like The Alien; eating the victim from the inside first.

A more common outcome in nature is that once the aroma wafts around a bit, various of the more powerful class of scavengers drops by and gobbles down what's left while there is still a fair amount of nutritional value left in the corpse.  One could argue that we are starting to see that (in Jon Corzine as an example...)

it won't help

QE = Quick Escape

THE FED WILL EASE SECRETLY...

lol!  maggots, muppets, whatever.

http://youtu.be/C6sFP_7Vezg=US eCONomy

no, its gonna happen alot faster than you think.