Topic: Bitcoin cannot function in its current version as a currency (Read 2772 times)

Closing this discussion in favor of https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3410891

I did offer a solution. In fact, my concerns are slowly and indirectly being addressed. Besides, I didn't claim Bitcoin is "fatally flawed." I claimed the current version doesn't address the needs of a currency very well. So far, most of the development has focused on the payment protocol and virtual commodity exchanges. Only now are currency issues being addressed in things like "colored coin" and "master coin," both indicative of usefulness as currencies, hence the terms 'coins.' They will play a large part in addressing the psychological factors needed to be acceptable as more than a commodity as a full-fledged currency.

Listen to the critics of Bitcoin sometime and don't be so dismissive when they say it's not "backed" by anything. Surely they are not experts on the subject, but their sentiment is worth noting. Currencies are indeed "backed" by their history and infrastructure used to establish their value. They also have their "network effect" so often claimed by Bitcoinia. Their currencies are not just backed by faith, but also by established rules such as "legal tender" and taxes that limit wealth aggregation. Bitcoin does have a clear advantage, and that is math. Bitcoin also has a lot of catching up to do in all areas of finance that have been claimed by countless other financial instruments besides currency, such as ownership and economic controls. Again, these will be easily addressed mathematically, transparently, and fairly.

i have some bitcoins, however, althought i think the cryptocurrencies are the future, it would be another to stay

Your concerns provably don't matter.

By every objective measurement, adoption is proceeding exponentially despite every so-called problem. Bitcoin is already a successful technology because people are choosing to use it. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the market tell us that whatever issues Bitcoin may have none of them are deal breakers. Some of the flaws that various concern trolls want to "fix" are actually selling points.

If you're going to start out an argument with the premise that Bitcoin is fatally flawed then you're as grounded in the real world as someone who starts an paper on hydrology by assuming that water flows uphill. If you want to be taken seriously you've got to acknowledge reality first, then try to make the case that the gains could be even greater in some alternate scenario.

trivially disproved is the word i was looking for 

Basically, you are saying that nothing could be "a currency", if it's not "backed up" by government.
Because it installs the "faith" and a sense of "responsibility" into users.
I agree, it is, indeed, the definition of currency in modern economics.

However, crypt-currencies are venturing outside present definitions.
The exchange rate will stabilize overtime. When volumes increase, fluctuations decrease.
Yes, Bitcoins will never be "backup" by the government or its promises.
But that does not mean that it will not be "psychologically backed".
Various commodity exchanges will come online. They will exchange BTC to any commodity.
Hopefully, derivatives from BTC will be allowed to trade on stock exchanges.
Amazon or Walmart start accepting BTC.
People will see that BTC is worth something and it does have purchasing power.

Also, your argument "people will be less inclined to believe that Bitcoin is less stable than fiat money" -> therefore BTC cannot function as currency; does not connect. Of course, people will have less faith in BTC, but that does mean it will fail. Pretty much everybody have less faith in Mesican peso than in US dollar; does peso fail as currency?

Bitcoin is a digital commodity and also a currency. They are separate features. The commodity aspect is supported by exchanges.the currency aspect needs further development. If exchanges are ever completely outlawed, then it will need a decentralized method of establishing value as a currency

Bitcoin and anything like it are more of a digital commodity, currencies are coming, we will see very soon what a proper currency is suppose to look like.

thank you. Though my parlance is coarse and composition terse, I try to share my understandings with passionate brevity.

Cbeast I must admire your writing skills in articles. I have seen your article and must say you are highly knowledgeable person in business field. Shall be waiting for your more articles as they are full of high quality knowledge. Thanks for all your research and writings.

More complex for developers (who love the challenge), but not end-users. I thought that would be an obvious inference. JavaScript adds a much more complex sub-system to HTML/CSS webpages (developers' side), but adds functionality to make things easier and better for end-users.


So you believe that labeling something as a "conspiracy theory" makes it untrue? That's really funny, given that Chris Martenson (author of the crash course linked above) has done everything he possibly can to avoid that label at all costs, by staying within mainstream parameters as much as possible!

By your lax definition, everything you've ever been told by an "authority" is a "conspiracy theory". People who throw about the term "conspiracy theory" are generally the most brainwashed, least informed, and of course most TV-watching people. Logically cornered, almost all of your arguments are now fallacies. This one is an appeal to ridicule.


Another appeal to ridicule and unfounded dismissal. Any crypto/crypto pair has similar volatility as BTC/LTC; that pair was used only as an example (which I think you understood). Elaborating further, crypto/crypto volatility is closer to fiat/fiat volatility, which shows that the unacceptable volatility of crypto/fiat is not an intrinsic or inherent aspect of cryptocurrencies. If you're looking at them in terms of their value in fiat, then you're right, but cryptocurrencies are (or will become) much more than that.


A bit of a straw man argument along with a sarcarstic appeal to ridicule. I was trying to show you that indeed anything can be used as currency (e.g. cacao beans, tally sticks, cigarettes, gold, pieces of paper, digital tokens of pieces of paper, digital cryptocurrencies). You even agreed that Bitcoin inescapably fits definition #1 for "currency".


A pretty silly straw man argument. I even rephrased it for you so you couldn't possibly continue to misunderstand what I wrote, but you chose to pretend that you continue to have the false understanding that I said that "the fact of the Internet are obsolete".


So you're just going to ignore the "(/if)" part, just like you ignored half of my sentence about definitions of currency being obsolete? Quoting out of context that blatantly suggests a twisted approach to this discussion.


You can say that as much as you want, but I suggest you might find more joy and satisfaction in seeking truth rather than short-term ego gratification (such as by pretending you know all that you need to know and mocking me). If you think it's a good idea to learn how the current monetary system works, then why would you dismiss Chris Martenson's extremely accurate Crash Course as something that "could not possibly be true" (what you really mean when you say/think "conspiracy theory")?

You are arguing that as it more technologies are build on top of the already complex utilization of the Bitcoin software, more simple it becomes to use the software. This is an argument based on a self contradictory premise. As more layers of technologies are added on top of the Bitcoin software, more complex it will become to use. Moreover, as more software are involved in the process, less secure it becomes for the end-user.


Yeah, sure.

 

LOL?


It all ends in a conspiracy theory. I should had predicted that!

I heard few years ago that 2012 would be the end of the world as well...


Nope, it would only suggest that volatility between LTC and BTC is lower than any fiat currency and BTC. What you wrote is just gibberish... Funny gibberish.


People used "cacao beans" at some point as currency, so therefore BTC is a currency. What a nice line of argumentation! Your comparison of "cacao beans" with BTC is the product of a genius!


English is not my mother language, so I must consider nonsense an useful information. Nice!


Oh, thank you very much. Yeah, you are right because you say so!

LOL?


Sorry, but you are not really telling truths here, hence the mocking. However, I agree that is a good idea to learn how the current monetary system works.

Nice link. Thanks.

Yes, absolutely, you got it, except for that small correction I made. That cryptocurrency software is complex at its core is necessary for technical reasons; it's becoming simpler to use as new software/technologies are built on top of it. Just like with the Internet (e.g. TCP/IP -> HTTP -> HTML -> CSS -> JS).


You're thinking very short-term. Technologies built upon the backbone, such as physical bitcoins, will help make it easier to use. You also don't understand that fiat currencies are mathematically programmed to fail, hence they will fail at some point, whether the end result is deflation or inflation.


How so? The fact that crypto/crypto volatility is much lower would suggest that volatility is not a cryptocurrency problem, but a speculation-driven crypto/fiat exchange problem, which is transitory during the cryptocurrency adoption phase.


In that context, yes. In jails, cigarettes can sometimes be used as a currency. There's also no reason why they couldn't be used as currency anywhere else. As an example, read about cacao beans. The longest lasting currency? Wooden sticks (used for over 700 years in England!).


If English isn't your first language, don't assume that others are writing nonsense. Rephrased: Old definitions of currency which do not take into account the fact of the Internet, are obsolete. (I.e. the definitions are obsolete, not the Internet.)


The documentaries were offered for your education, not as references to support my "pointless arguments". There are no contradictions or hypocrisy, otherwise you'd be pointing them out, which you try to do next...


First, I am not right because a documentary says so, I'm right because(/if) it is so. I can think for myself. I haven't watched TV in 6 years. It's a very bad idea to assume that you already know all you need to know. There is nothing more dangerous than a closed mind.

Somehow, the idea that "We are still in a monetary system and advocating against money does not mean bill collectors forgive your debts" seems hypocritical to you, yet it is obviously true. In the all-or-nothing/black-or-white way you are thinking, one would have to completely stop using the system's money if one is to oppose it. That's ridiculous.

Nobody is against money per se. It doesn't make sense to oppose a concept. It's a good idea to get an understanding of how the current monetary system works (which we are not taught in schools/academia/media), and how it evolved, before one embarks onto more advanced ideas, such as cryptocurrencies or the idea of a resource-based economy (RBE). See, that's the problem, that many of us are still willfully ignorant and even instinctively mock people who point you towards the truth.
 

Well thank you for acknowledging my point. You are funny too, in a good way. I wouldn't be replying to you if it weren't fun!

It only fits the description #3. In accordance with other descriptions BTC is not a commodity. Perhaps the Bitcoin software could be defined as commodity, however the unit of the medium of exchange generated by this software (BTC) is certainly not a commodity.


BTC, the medium of exchange generated by a software, only fit the description #1. BTC do not have general acceptance or is widely accepted and circulated, so it not fits the descriptions #2, #3 and #4. Because BTC is just a entry in a central ledger (know as blockchain), it is not in circulation like real coins, so it not fits the description #5. 

You are comparing the concept of currency with the concept of slavery and arguing that because both are a kind of "primitive behaviour", the whole humanity should just forgot about it and start to use a very complex software to facilitate trade and barter.


Nope, the vast majority of people are certainly not going to abandon the utilization of fiat currency. It is far more simple to use fiat currency rather than use any complex software which requires a computer and Internet connection to work.


True, however my point remains and your comparison is out of context.


People use cigarettes in jail to trade and barter. So in accordance with your logic cigarettes must be a currency...

By the way, "the fact of the Internet are obsolete"? Really?


I really like to observe people like you come here and throw this documentaries as reference to support your pointless arguments. It is really hilarious because people like never notice the contradiction and the hypocrisy of your actions.

http://www.lazeitgeist.com/faqs?fid=15


It is like to say:

"I am right because a documentary from an organization which is against money (but sells merchandise for money) said that money is the source of all evil. Therefore Bitcoin (which is used to obtain money) will replace all forms of money".

LOL.
 

You are funny.

Thank you for the laugh.

That's a complex subject, but lets start with faith in the money. They put shit like all-seeing-eyes and eagles with olive branches to make it feel magically endowed with purchasing power. They also set government fees and taxes as a base for "backing" the currency as relative to those taxes. They create tax brackets based on what they want the currency to be worth. Most of this is unintended consequences, but very effective. They use math to determine these factors.  Bitcoin needs to be psychologically backed by the faith of its users to have some assurances that the value is relevant to something even it's only the rolling average.  Markets can still trade freely, but people will be less inclined to believe that Bitcoin is less stable than fiat money.

I didn't get that part even after reading your previous threads.
What exact "psychological functionality" does Bitcoin need?

I think the answer is colored coin. In the original thread I proposed a layer over Bitcoin such as Stratum. Colored coin should be able to support APIs like bitcoinaverage.com that statistically analyze various exchanges. It's only a temporary solution,  but will offer some emotional support for those not able to do the rolling average forecasting themselves.

http://www.copblock.org/5475/when-should-you-shoot-a-cop/