Topic: Bitcoin as currency of currencies (Read 1935 times)

I was reading again the comments made on this thread about my main posts here and found something interesting in the above comment (the part in bold) and wanted to put here as a comment a mine comment - made after the above comment - created as a my search of data and exact definitions regarding the above. I am putting it here all (as it was and as a comment to the new Satoshi Nakamoto from Australia - is missing only the one from Pakistan and my country) because there is no need to do corrections. It is another mine different point of view comparing to important people of Institutions (always taking as true that the comments of the posters who name their thoughts, words or decisions about this matter are as they write. Again it would be pleasure for me to read any kind of comment even about this interpretation as well as the one written in the main post. Exist a specific in the above post made by CoinBateman. it is spoken about "digital commodity" and I haven't found any definition in internet about this concept. Everything below has to do simply with the commodity as it is know this existence until today and for which exist even definitions. If everyone have more to tell about the digital one is invited to explain here all he want. I will be curios the know the new definitions of this new concept.

I have to make only question about this fact: It is not this classification in a unknown thing since today an way to regulate bitcoin but to not accept that is a currency for reasons that only CFTC know?

Until that probable comment enjoy to everyone (and again discuss who want):






I am giving below a previous my post which analyze such kind of definition given by Dr. Wright (alias Satoshi Nakamoto). I am curious to learn his opinion about my thoughts and interpretations, but not being me Gavin Andresen with who he had privileged partnership, this my hope can be archived. Who know if I will be ably to sleep tonight after this disillusion. Below is t my previous post (only it is replaced the name of the previous poster with the name of Dr. Wright):

But lets go to the facts. According to Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commodity.asp :

1. A basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers. When they are traded on an exchange, commodities must also meet specified minimum standards, also known as a basis grade.

2. Any good exchanged during commerce, which includes goods traded on a commodity exchange.

So, according to Dr. Wright, we have a basic good that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. It is clear that bitcoin is a commodity because all the things bought with it are of the same type of it. All the computer bought at Dell with bitcoin, all the xBox bought at Microsoft with bitcoin and all the other things bought at internet with bitcoin (porn, movies, gambling etc.) are at the same type with bitcoin. Have its qualities (so with all of those can be bought everything), are an invention of a peer to peer technology and are all within internet (so don't exist out of it). More convincing arguments than the above Dr. Right cannot find.

Then, always according to Dr. Right, commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. Sure, Dr. Right learn to all us that bitcoin is used widely to produce all the above things bought by it. So bitcoin is used as input in the production of computers, xBox, in the producing of porn, movies, gambling etc. Who of us have not tasted a very good porn make and played from bitcoin itself. Another undeniable argumentation made by Dr. Right.

For me are enough those arguments to not go further. Who want to go forward can continue with the other arguments made from this brave, sure and deep cognitive of bitcoin.

Maybe needed to do ever one definition which fulfill the above argumentation of Dr. Right and without which can be created some doubt about everything written above. What is the meaning of good.

According to Wikipedia https://en.hwikipedia.org/wiki/Good_(economics):

In economics, a good is a material that satisfies human wants and provides utility, for example, to a consumer making a purchase. A common distinction is made between 'goods' that are tangible property (also called goods) and services, which are non-physical.

Then always according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangible_property :

Tangible property in law is, literally, anything which can be touched, and includes both real property and personal property (or movable property), and stands in distinction to intangible property.

The big Dr. Right tell in this case only one important thing which is a devastating argument in support of its inspiring theory: bitcoin is a good (commodities) which is a tangible property: so which can be touched (as it is written in the above definitions). Who of us have not touched with his hands the beautiful coin (commodity) named BITCOIN.

It can be a currency in future but not the major currency, I mean it is difficult that bitcoin can ever become a primary currency, and if it does than it would be an magical experience, but for that it needs a support from the people, society, governments and the banking system, if adoption goes higher, bitcoin has better prospects.

Yeah It can’t be now. But many companies adapting are bitcoin and they are establishing bitcoin in their business. That’s the good symbol for bitcoin. Before completing 2016 many companies start to implement bitcoin. Then automatically it will happen.

Thank you for the comment Odolvlobo. And thank you twice for what you have written in your post. That's my comment:

For the first point my idea is that bitcoin be the beginning, the etalon for every other legal national (or whatever can be) currency (possibly and hopefully digital coin one as it is written in an comment in this thread). So like exists etalons as "measuring unit" for the weight, the length, etc be even a etalon for the currencies. In other words, being etalon mean being the "measure" of "measurement" of the value of all the above mentioned currencies (in one word all the possible currencies - even for those which will born in the future). To be so, must be fixed the price of it explained in unity of currency (as a basic unity which can measure currencies as a tool of exchange). If so the only thing that can be compared with bitcoin (with this status) can be only bitcoin.

As for the second point I have a dilemma about my thoughts. Have two ways of explaining and both may be questionable. Not because the first may be better than the second one but because both can be applied and can have different impact. This first one is that the above explanation give immediately the answer to your second point. If bitcoin accepted as a etalon its price will be fixed and any kind of phenomenon can change it. So this explain even my possible solution (thought) to your second point.

But I am a free spirit. And I don't want to make to the others someone which is not accepted by me. So I would like a free bitcoin and not a fixed one. In this meaning I have even a second idea to give. Maybe a little more difficult to be accepted or even understand, but that, according to me, might be applicable the same. Bitcoin be a "etalon in move" following the supply/demand for it and all the other factors which determine the value of market for a currency. This, according to me would the perfect choice. I understand that this may affect the value of the other currencies. But if the other currency will be well managed this risk is zero. Because the real value of a currency is based at the real need of the economy in which that currency has legal status. this is the first factor which determine its value. And if the amount of it in circulation is made correctly every change of the value of bitcoin (by whatever reason) will affect (normally) immediately even the value of every other currency managed in the right mode and correctly by the responsible Authorities. Correcting in this way the "error" become from the change of "value" of bitcoin.

So those are my thoughts. You are invited to comment those as you like.

Another last thing. I already know that bitcoin is not the best coin in the market of cryptos. So it is normal to be asked: why bitcoin such role and not another crypto better than it? I think must be bitcoin mainly for two reasons:

1. Always will be better cryptos in time. Cannot be changed an etalon every month or year. Bitcoin is the first of its species and deserve such role. To not forget that exist the possibility that "him" be perfected and improved always in time.
2. Bitcoin is not only the first of its species but it is even the first materialized, well known, and widespread product of the technology (peer to peer) which will change the world of technologies (but not only this) at least in the next 30 or even more years. Again this fact give to "him" the right to cover such place.

I think the main reason why currencies are quoted in USD is that it is ubiquitous and generally stable. If you want currencies to be quoted in BTC, then BTC would have to become more ubiquitous and stable than the USD (it could happen).

It seems like you believe that since the number of bitcoins is fixed, then its value does not vary. Here two reasons why I think that is not true:

The value of something is always relative to something else. Currently, the value of 1 bitcoin is equal to 451 dollars and it is also equal to 12.7 grams of gold. Both of those values could change tomorrow, and by different amounts. So when you assume bitcoin would have a constant value, the question becomes, constant relative to what, and what market mechanism ties the two values together?

Also, the value (more specifically, the price) of a bitcoin depends on supply and demand. As economies in the world grow and shrink, the supply and demand for bitcoins are going to change -- and so is the value of a bitcoin. Assuming that we expect the overall world economy to continue to grow, the common wisdom believes that will lead to an increasing demand for a fixed supply of bitcoins, and lead to a higher price. But, it could also be the case that increasing adoption and improved technology could increase the velocity of money, which would lower the demand instead, and lead to a lower price.

It can be ... in the future, not now

I see that most the comments (and I thanks everyone for their comments whatsoever it will be) write about to many things but not about the most important given as a title of this thread.

Can be one day bitcoin the currency of currencies? Can be bitcoin the reference point of every currency? Can be bitcoin the etalon for every currency of the world?

I add those the below questions:

If most of the countries (like are the rumors for two-three of those - but which are between the most importants) adopt a national digital coin currency, it will be easier for bitcoin to have the above role (if it will be possible to be)?

I am giving below a "prediction" of Nobel prize in economics (very old but that can give incentives to discuss about this topic):

“We don’t need a Fed,” Milton Friedman says, twirling a letter opener as he speaks. “I have, for many years, been in favor of replacing the Fed with a computer,” he adds. Each year, it “would print out a specified number of paper dollars” to augment the money supply. “Same number, month after month, week after week, year after year.”

Who want more about this interview read here: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/milton-rose-friedman-offer-radical-ideas-21st-century

Can be possible this situation? Can help this interview and the "prediction" of Friedman that bitcoin become currency of currencies?

It is a computer product, created regularly every 10 minutes, in the same quantity.

What can harm bitcoin in the fulfill of this mission (if possible) if something can be moved in this way?

So, these are the main questions that have interest to be discussed. Those help in the development of the idea of this thread. Those can help everyone (including and especially me as the creator of it) to learn more about what is written above and at the main post.

Bitcoin is great currency for online people like me. I prefer to make BTC wallet than make the other currency account such as PerfectMoney or PayPal.

I can exchange it easily with my friends or my neighbor.

And with my circles who had many foreign friends and trade service each other. Bitcoin help us a lot.

Even we make some group discuss for start investing on Yuan with BTC!

Bitcoin reminds me of the early days of the internet. We had alot of scams and bubbles too, but the libertarian view of bitcoin simply won't be free in the eyes of the governments. Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin is  heading away from being people's money.

The coin today is not much very known yet in all parts of the world and not being used yet but the thing is it is rising up so fast like
everything changes so fast and we didn't even notice it. One day it will be one of the strongest currency this world could ever have.

Yes I remember that as well. This is the trojan horse he often talks about. The same with google wallet and apple pay.
He said let them teach the masses how to pay with smartphones. And then let us introduce Bitcoin to the people and show them how cheap and more easier to use it is.

Thanks for the intervention Mickeyb. I approve fully the idea of Andreas Antonopoulos (not because he need my approval  ) but only to express my vote for this thought. I hope that one day he will work with all the importants of the world of bitcoin to make true this thing. It will be an interesting experiment, with to many unknown things, but, according to my modest thought, successful. I think that the system with this kind of currency will be an progress in every economic system which will adopt it.

I think that the most important of bitcoin is only the technology which has invented and created it. The peer to peer. As for its classification I think that this depends from various points of view and from factors which can be made in consideration. Everyone has the right to make its choices. I made mine.  

Anyhow thanks for the comment.  

Thanks for reading and your comments bro.

Your thoughts it will be the best think to do. Russia has in mind to realize this already. There is a thread here about this matter. I have made a post there. I don't have the link of this thread but you can find it with the search button. Fed and IBM has in mind to realize to a similar thing. Read here:https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ibm-federal-reserve-want-create-bitcoin-knock-off/. I will post this article to your thread as a bullish one.

But this, if can and will happen, don't excludes at all my idea. Bitcoin is the king of cryptocurencies actually. All those are traded with bitcoin. Will be the same if your idea become true. It is like that everyone of the actual cryptocurrencies be national currency of one country. Will be traded having as point of reference the bitcoin. The become true of my idea.

Edit: I found the link of the thread about Russia. Here it is: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-country-would-have-to-be-a-damn-fool-to-start-a-national-cryptocurrency-1200194

Andreas Antonopoulos has said exactly this when they asked him what does he think about the government and banks centralized Blockchain's?

He has answered, I paraphrase: Let them lay the infrastructure for us, let them build the wallets, let them learn the people how to send transactions and pay with these blockchain tokens and then we will show them the real decentralized Bitcoin. I have no doubt in my mind which one blockchain technology the world will choose!

Bitcoin as a currency is the least interesting aspect about Bitcoin honestly.

CFTC has recently ruled bitcoin as a digital commodity, and I think personally it has more value treated like so.

There is no true valuation of Bitcoin that prices it even at the price it is at right now. If it should function as a currency, there stands no reason why it should be dislocated so greatly from other currencies.

If a currency needs 'support' then its just being propped up at a price that nobody else really wants to pay.

My dear brother, n2004al.

I thought about the idea from a different perspective.

Let's say each of the world's country had it's own coin. USA coin, Germany coin, South Africa coin and so on.

It will help bitcoin in gaining more adoption and more people will use it and trust it as well as you will be nearly forced to deal with cryptocoins.

What do you think ?

Thanks for the comment.  

If with the coin you mean bitcoin its supply is well known. Everyone know (you too I think) that bitcoin is added in the market (in our days) only 25 bitcoin every about 10 minutes.  So your thoughts are not correct. Even can be lost some or more coin the supply is stable. And this is the point in which is based the above supposition of main post.

If with the coin you mean the currency of whatever country, this to many money in the market will be reflected in the rate of exchange  bitcoin-the currency of that country. And that will show exact the real value of that currency. In other words that what we want.

Although the total coin supply is known, the real supply on market is very unpredictable. That's also the major headache of central banks: They can print as much money as they want, but they can not force people to spend them, and once there are too much fiat money out there, an inflation storm will arrive without time to react

Thanks for the comments. Appreciate to much every your thought. But:

Disagree with the first part in bold. In most of countries the price of bitcoin is given in us dollar or in euro and yen. Even in almost or all exchanges is given with those three currencies. So no in other currencies. Only that three. And from those us dollar have the part of lion. This is my impression.

Agree with the second part in bold. It is true. Bitcoin is not depending from dollar. For this I am convinced and I can tell "I know" this.   But telling this after that the written in the main post seems false. So accept it as you wish. It is a lapsus. The meaning of this sentence is that today all the counts when someone make some jobs or buy something or do something and use bitcoin is made in dollar (or euro, or yen; depend which nationality you have). So if I want to buy something in ebay which have the price in bitcoin first do the counts converting the price in bitcoin in dollar and after KNOWING" THE PRICE (VALUE) OF THE PRODUCT IN THE SECOND CURRENCY DECIDE WHAT TO DO. In this point of view bitcoin "depends" from us dollar. If the price in dollar seems high I don't buy, if seems convenient I buy. So the buying in bitcoin depends from the value of bitcoin in dollar. But the word "depend" used in this case is inappropriate. So must not be used. Needed the above explanation (if necessary). And no other word.

Third part in bold is that I have wrote. I don't know why have you chosen to highlighted.

Very happy with the fourth part in bold. That sentence accept in essence my idea. I found a bitcoiner which believe in reality in bitcoin and on its power.

And now about the underline sentence. Are 42 the countries which officially bitcoin is known. The other countries is supposed that don't know it or where the knowledge of bitcoin is insignificant. Mostly (suppose) because don't exist data and this mean (suppose) no data to have. In other words in those country are ignored. All the world have about 200. Comaring 42 countries with about 200 countries can be understand in how country bitcoin is ignored. In this you are right. But me to. It is told this even by me. From the 42 countries in 9 of those bitcoin is banned or 21.4% This percentage for me is high. Maybe not "most" but "high" for sure. If at those countries where bitcoin is banned we add the countries when bitcoin is restricted (which are three) the number when bitcoin is not free to be used normally go at 12 or 28.5%. Again a big figure.

In conclusion I disagree even with the underline sentence. Those countries are not "few" and are not "at all".

For more about the underline sentence you can see this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country