Topic: Bitcoin cannot function in its current version as a currency - page 2. (Read 2773 times)

The right answer is "never" because anyone who asks you that is an FBI agent.

It can be both. This debate is as old as the crust on Ron Paul's underwear and I lost interest in it. I only want him to change the header because it will bounce around at the top for weeks and I'll have to keep seeing it.

Thanks and yes, I have.  My favorite is: When should you shoot a cop?

Some definitions:

com·mod·i·ty (noun):
1. a raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee. (synonyms:   item, material, product, article, object)
2. an article of trade or commerce, especially a product as distinguished from a service.
3. something of use, advantage, or value.


Bitcoin fits #3, but it certainly also fits the definition of currency:

cur·ren·cy (noun):
1. something that is used as a medium of exchange; money.
2. general acceptance; prevalence; vogue.
3. a time or period during which something is widely accepted and circulated.
4. the fact or quality of being widely accepted and circulated from person to person.
5. circulation, as of coin.

So why can't Bitcoin be both a currency and a commodity, just like PMs? There's no contradiction. (Love your handle, btw, QuestionAuthority... have you heard of Larken Rose?)

Centrally-controlled (fractional-reserve debt-based) currency is "one of the oldest concepts in human history"? If you are thinking of a few thousand years out of the 7000 years of recorded history, I think you'd still be more wrong than right. And of course, we are at least 200,000 (arguably 2 million) years old. But more importantly, this is an irrelevant point. Slavery is also "one of the oldest concepts in human history" -- does that mean we should not even try to move beyond such primitive behavior?


Yes, that's what I said. The volatility will exist during the transition period. When we eventually ditch the obsolete type of medium of exchange that enables the central banking cartel to play their nasty game of black magic, then the volatility we see today no longer applies (because you're no longer trading BTC for fiat, you're using BTC just like you use USD today).


Yes, you're right, it also has that effect. Both are true. The first effect is needed (or at least very useful) to facilitate adoption. The second effect is unavoidable (right?), and will be meaningless when centrally-controlled currencies are abandoned as the primitive system of debt-slavery that they represent.


You must've misread my sentence. I said that crypto/crypto volatility (BTC/LTC) is lower than crypto/fiat (BTC/USD) volatility.


Like others pointed out, BTC is being used as a currency, therefore it is a currency. Old definitions of currency that do not take into account the fact of the Internet are obsolete.

You may not have discovered all there is to discover yet... The current system cannot survive much longer, nor should it. Killing people by the millions, consuming the planet's resources with no regard for sustainability, corruption at every level (not just politics but media, banking, medical, scientific, etc)... May I suggest watching a few documentaries? Money as Debt, Zeitgeist Addendum, The Money Masters are 3 good ones to help understand how money and banking (currently) works. Cryptocurrencies are their worst nightmare, though generally speaking they don't know it yet.


Notice the second part of the sentence ("and no longer commonly priced as a ratio of a fiat currency"). The point I was making is that we will no longer see BTC's worth in terms of its exchange rate(s). 1 BTC will only be seen as 1 BTC, not as X USD or X EUR.

a few people here think currency must be legal tender. it must be a fixed price and never change more then a smal amount.

you are all wrong.

currency is simply an item used in trade at an agreed value.

EG
vodka in russia can be used as currency, it can be valued as worth just a smile on the recipients face, as payment in thanks for doing someone a favour, to pay a garage owner for repairing your car, or as something worth $3 a shot in a bar.

cigarettes can be currency, during high school years it can be used to get a bit of action from a girl behind the bike-shed, it can prevent a bit of action in prison, it can be used to pay off a friend who bought you pizza the night before. or it can be used to earn government alot of tax.

clothing can be used to impress a girl to get a bit of action that night, to repay a homeless guy for allowing you to share his dry sleeping slot for the night.

anything that has value that someone else wants. and between 2 people they agree on the terms of value. that is currency. it does not matter if 2 people in india value it at $1 and 2 people in africa value it at $20. as long as those doing the exchange of value agree on the value. then that is it...

as for those saying the price is too volatile. i would make a lengthy explanation as to the fact that although its the hoarders fault for selling too low and not refusing to sell below $1000. volatility is a good thing when it comes to currency. LEARN the word "bartering"..

for too long people have been reared up like sheep to follow the one path of fixed prices, centralised controls and false sense of security.

welcome to bitcoin.. its a whole new world

But Bitcoin IS functioning is a tool for bartering products and services. Pink slips and Title deeds serve a similar purpose. With Bitcoin, the value is in the infrastructure and the computer hardware required for running it. With it's open source nature, all of the users know that the game is FAIR.

With fiat... our own government can't even regulate the FED.

I can observe people using BTC to obtain fiat currency as much as possible. So BTC is not functional as "currency", but as medium of exchange to obtain fiat currency. Moreover, BTC is not used by the first and second sector of any economy, so is far away to be a functional "currency".

We can observe people today using Bitcoin as a currency, therefore it is functional as a currency.

Case closed - your premise is trivially disprovable therefore requires no further addressing.

Nope, they are not destined to replace one of the oldest concept in human history.


Nope, volatility in this case is the result of a financial instrument being traded in unregulated exchanges.


Nope, the losses that volatility causes to the average consumer/business undermines the public confidence in the utilization of BTC as medium of exchange.


Nope, the BTC / Fiat volatility in the exchange markets are far worse than "bad".

E.g.





GBP / USD chage: +0.01300%

BTC / USD change: +15.36000%

Ooops!


Nope, the "old control system" will not "fall under its own dead weight" and BTC is not a currency.


Wow, really? So 1 BTC do not worth 1 BTC? So how much worth?

The quote above is literally nonsense.

Is your main contention that Bitcoin "will never stabilize"? I think that's very short-sighted.

In your older thread you write: "There is no plan to create any stabilizing factor. Simply expanding the user base will not stop people from pumping and dumping and causing panics."

I don't disagree with that, but I think in the bigger picture, cryptocurrencies are intended/destined to replace the concept of centrally-controlled currencies. Volatility is not an inherent quality, it's just a transitory thing. I don't think speculation/investment/hedging can be prevented during the transition, nor is it necessarily desirable. The profit potential (not to mention the news this generates) is a very useful, arguably critical, motivator for adoption.

Notice the BTC/LTC volatility isn't nearly as bad as BTC/fiat volatility. As BTC gains further market share as a currency, the old control system will fall under its own dead weight. When 1 BTC is worth 1 BTC and no longer commonly priced as a ratio of a fiat currency, the controlled inflation mechanism (and hoarding and private key losses, etc) will be the factors that determine volatility.

The only response I ever get is "But the base will grow and margin orders will level off the volatility." Those arguments don't address my concern that a currency needs to have some psychological element built in like fiat does.

Ohh no beast you are a hero super member and speaking the truth, commence you are discraceful comments in 3 2 1

Since my thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--189062 has been moved to economics, I will put this in terms of Bitcoin's functionality flaw. I have talked about this for years. Currency is a psychological phenomenon. There is no psychological functionality built into the Bitcoin protocol.

by cbeast November 22, 2011, 12:30:04 PM