Topic: 2013-04-17 Forbes article that Bitcoin is not money (Read 968 times)

Personal attacks do not make for persuasive arguments. I always assume I have a superior argument when someone resorts to an ad hominem attack.

But you are right about one thing "nuff said"

You asked me to explain the argument to you, I tried the best I could.

Yes you do.

Your perception is intrinsically distorted.

nuff said.

No I am not confusing the two.

I am asserting that the intrinsic perceived value may drive exchange prices, and that currency can have either high value, and trade at a higher price against other currencies, or can have a low perceived value, and trade at a lower price compared to other currencies - Either way they are still currencies.

Value and price are not deterministic of currency but rather features that are interelated

You are confusing price with value.

The only reason a dollar, or a franc, or a Euro has any value is because we have a stable system in which people are known to accept these pieces of paper in return for something valuable. Or, as Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman puts it, "the pieces of green paper have value because everybody thinks they have value."

The same holds true for Bitcoin  - we do not have tanks and armies to back its perceived value but if a large enough group is willing to place trust in it and accept value in trade for Bitcoin, then it functions as a currency. Valuation and acceptance of almost any currency is basically perception; If I perceive it to have value and enough others share the same belief it will have value and people will accept it in trade for goods and services.

Not every currency is equal  - obviously Bitcoin has a ways to go before it is generally accepted. I do not think that general acceptance is a defining feature of a currency  - rather it is that it is accepted by some as having value and are willing to accept it as a medium of exchange for goods and services. The broader the acceptance, generally the more stable the price and the easier it is to exchange for goods and services

Iraq Dinar's are currency yet I would not accept them in trade for goods and services as I do not perceive the value in them and do not trust them. It is the same for bitcoin; some accept Bitcoin as an exchange medium with value and some do not

Money is related to value, this is called backing.

Historically that meant vouchers for a hand of grain which was stored by the local sovereign, backed by a standing army.
In modern terms that means you can pay your taxes with it which are used to provide infrastructure, black helicopters and and food stamps. It is backed by the police and military and you are guaranteed to be able to pay all your debts with it, not just taxes.

You now probably say now: But that's socialism!
Wrong.
Modern society is built on structure and what you call socialism provides that structure for you, what you call capitalism enables you access to this structure.

Now if the Bitcoin network would do something else than crunching hashes, something which is actually useful like sequencing DNA that would be something different.

It would be more helpful if you actually presented your viewpoint and arguments rather than just tell me I'm wrong. I am interested in your take on the article

The argument isn't flawed, your thinking is.


You are repeating yourself. Are you stuck in your thought pattern?

What does that even mean? The opening was an acknowledgement that some view bitcoin as a currency and some do not. Regardless of that viewpoint the post was about the Forbes article and what appears to be a flawed logical argument. It may be that the conclusion of the article is true but the arguments seem flawed

David, you're right.  Largely these arguments between classical economists and Bitcoin are based in semantics.


If currency needed to be at a fixed value Forex wouldn't exist.  Even though there is a strong argument for relative stability in currency.  As technology becomes better such volatility can be countered on the supply side, so arguments containing 'must have inherent, fixed value' I just ignore.


My opinion is that classical economists get a little scatterbrained and flustered in that Bitcoin essentially obsoletes their profession.

Typical shill opening.

Whether you believe bitcoin is currency or not, I believe this article from Forbes and its central argument has a grave logical flaw - His premise is that Bitcoin cannot be money based on the fact it does not have a fixed value. He proffers this because it's USD value varies so much and is traded like a commodity.

Bitcoin does have a fixed value its 1 BTC - the fact that it varies against other currencies is no different from a dollars, pounds or yen. His central argument is flawed because he equates variance in exchange rates, to not having a fixed value



http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2013/04/16/bitcoin-whatever-it-is-its-not-money/