"am I wrong thinking bitcoins are virtual property"
to me this is the most interesting question on the forum and has not been addressed! My last attempt at discussing this got me labeled as a troll! because I was misunderstood and "appeared" to dismiss btc. On the contrary as soon as I came across the concept it leapt out at me as significant as the introduction of the internet or bigger.
Back to the question ( like- does god exist) this will be debated ad-infinitum- however to the above the answer is yes and no?
Anything virtual only exists because of the medium on which it is stored, so like btc on a computer/disc/memory stick/paper etc it is virtual property and will be coveted as such in the same way that films/music is. However the actual strings of random numbers in cyberspace just as the film or song does not physically exist at all. It is an abstract subjective concept.
This is a great strength and valued between people. Just like an idea or a song you have heard or film you have seen it cannot be taken from you unlike anything physical. It returns autonomy over your finances to yourself alone.
Attacks on btc follow the familiar path of trying to control intellectual property and are against the "medium" exchanges wallets etc. On the whole attempts to control or own anything subjective will fail and that is my main reason for optimism for btc. reg
Topic: Are Bitcoin's virtual property? - page 6. (Read 9859 times)
So while I intuitively know what Bitcoin's are, and have since I decided to buy and mine them over 22 months ago, most people just don't seem to care, I read a lot about what it is not, and what it is, seems to be always a complicated explanation that day to day people seem to loos interest over.
Or worse it is described as "virtual currency" and seems to lack traction or credibility. Conjuring imagery of buying virtual food or a virtual plane trip to enjoy virtual fun leaving day to day Fiat accepting people thinking it is good for virtually nothing tangible, and leaving the belief intact that Fiat is tangible.
(before some one can grasp the merits of Bitcoin one first has to understand the problem that money is Virtual, and while Fiat money buys tangible things it is an inferior virtual concept. )
Given Bitcoin's are not:
- a ponzi scheme, although there are many similarities as it propagates the way it is.
- a commodity, although it triads like one it has no commodity value other than the intrinsic value being P2P and secure and finite.
- a Currency, well not just yet or not, because it is virtual (ethereal) and lacks scale making it big enough to support a triad based micro economy (silk road aside given most bitcoiners probably aren't trading on SR)
- Securities or investments, well not practicality by guarantee or by definition although the Bitcoin community defiantly sees it this way.
- Money either, well it has potential, but while the Market Cap in value dwarfs BTC economic GDP, it is safe to say it's value as money is inherent in the system, but not reflected in the economy.
This may sound obvious but in the light of the above it seems to be a bit of an insight for me, to think of Bitcoin as the first finite digital property. The digital property Idea allows it to evolve to be any one of the "not" definitions above.
A Digital world being endless is by its virtual nature repeatable and abundant. In essence the internet era constitutes a paradigm shift for humanity which has evolved in a finite world, and now Bitcoin creates a tangible bridge between the Virtual and Finite.
Despite hundreds of years of attempts to make virtual ideas real by calling them Intellectual Property (IP) or the ever evolution of DRM, and redefining our laws to make them legitimate, Bitcoin is the first technology to make virtual properly finite.
So am I wrong thinking Bitcoin is virtual property?
Or worse it is described as "virtual currency" and seems to lack traction or credibility. Conjuring imagery of buying virtual food or a virtual plane trip to enjoy virtual fun leaving day to day Fiat accepting people thinking it is good for virtually nothing tangible, and leaving the belief intact that Fiat is tangible.
(before some one can grasp the merits of Bitcoin one first has to understand the problem that money is Virtual, and while Fiat money buys tangible things it is an inferior virtual concept. )
Given Bitcoin's are not:
- a ponzi scheme, although there are many similarities as it propagates the way it is.
- a commodity, although it triads like one it has no commodity value other than the intrinsic value being P2P and secure and finite.
- a Currency, well not just yet or not, because it is virtual (ethereal) and lacks scale making it big enough to support a triad based micro economy (silk road aside given most bitcoiners probably aren't trading on SR)
- Securities or investments, well not practicality by guarantee or by definition although the Bitcoin community defiantly sees it this way.
- Money either, well it has potential, but while the Market Cap in value dwarfs BTC economic GDP, it is safe to say it's value as money is inherent in the system, but not reflected in the economy.
This may sound obvious but in the light of the above it seems to be a bit of an insight for me, to think of Bitcoin as the first finite digital property. The digital property Idea allows it to evolve to be any one of the "not" definitions above.
A Digital world being endless is by its virtual nature repeatable and abundant. In essence the internet era constitutes a paradigm shift for humanity which has evolved in a finite world, and now Bitcoin creates a tangible bridge between the Virtual and Finite.
Despite hundreds of years of attempts to make virtual ideas real by calling them Intellectual Property (IP) or the ever evolution of DRM, and redefining our laws to make them legitimate, Bitcoin is the first technology to make virtual properly finite.
So am I wrong thinking Bitcoin is virtual property?
Jump to: