Topic: Bitcoin is a QT, Bitcoin is Art. (Read 412 times)
On this day 13 years ago, The Bitcoin Logo with the B symbol was presented in the following thread, and it was a gold coin, Bitcoin is digital gold: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.504
It's up to you to present bitcoin in any way possible based on your background, bitcoin is still bitcoin. The way you use it is art, the way you store PK in various forms of media is art, and the way scammers steal people's bitcoins is also art.
But the only real and logical explanation is that it was created by an artist.
Satoshi isn't an artist.Well some people say every inventor is a little bit an artist
Do not think it is good idea to talk about payment method as an art. It have to be serious financial thing
Bitcoin is the most serious financial solution: The most valuable transactional network in the world. The most robust supranational public infrastructure. Bitcoin is many things, among them, Bitcoin is also a beautiful work of art. Art is serious, and Bitcoin's solemnity is secured by inmutable code.
Do not think it is good idea to talk about payment method as an art. It have to be serious financial thing
Whether something is art or isn't is subject to many debates. Some believe art should express universal values, others value originality, uniqueness. Some think art is purely subjective, but many believe that it can roughly be judged objectively (which is how the value and recognition of some work over other is possible).
Bitcoin isn't subjective to me. In fact, it's all about verifiable things and consensus. There can be different purposes for Bitcoin, but they aren't limitless and largely fall into gambling, trading, hodling, using it as money.
As a person who teaches logic, I also can't help but point out a logical mistake in the last three sentences (if we take them together, as two premises and a conclusion). Even if Bitcoin is freedom and art is also freedom, that doesn't mean that Bitcoin is art. Simple example: apples are fruit, oranges are fruit, but apples aren't oranges.
Bitcoin isn't subjective to me. In fact, it's all about verifiable things and consensus. There can be different purposes for Bitcoin, but they aren't limitless and largely fall into gambling, trading, hodling, using it as money.
As a person who teaches logic, I also can't help but point out a logical mistake in the last three sentences (if we take them together, as two premises and a conclusion). Even if Bitcoin is freedom and art is also freedom, that doesn't mean that Bitcoin is art. Simple example: apples are fruit, oranges are fruit, but apples aren't oranges.
Code = Speech
Speech = subjective expression
Art = subjective freedom
Bitcoin = Code for freedom (financial freedom)
Bitcoin = Speech for freedom
speech for freedom = subjective expression for freedom
subjetive expression for freedom = subjective freedom
Bitcoin = Art
NoFull-RBF
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer electronic currency, just like Satoshi said. When people start calling it something else, like "a swarm of digital hornets", "digital gold", "art", "revolution" and so on, it suggests that it isn't doing well as currency, because otherwise people wouldn't need to create new narratives of what Bitcoin is.
You should not make heavy about how the Op tried to paint bitcoin. I do not think he means anything bad. It could he is trying to see bitcoin from the eye of an artist. I see what the Op said as a kind of poem on bitcoin. Poets have their way of saying things. Every other person that qualified bitcoin different from what Satoshi said it is not saying it because they are trying to rubbish bitcoin or Satoshi's statement of fact. It is only that they want to add more attributes to bitcoin on how it appeals to them.
Once I thought that art is only what is painted on canvas, or carved out of stone. But in fact, there is a solid art surrounding us - starting from ingenious engineering solutions, ending with beautifully written program code. All this is real art. And of course, the very idea of cryptocurrencies and its implementation is something even more than art. This is real freedom!
Whether something is art or isn't is subject to many debates. Some believe art should express universal values, others value originality, uniqueness. Some think art is purely subjective, but many believe that it can roughly be judged objectively (which is how the value and recognition of some work over other is possible).
Bitcoin isn't subjective to me. In fact, it's all about verifiable things and consensus. There can be different purposes for Bitcoin, but they aren't limitless and largely fall into gambling, trading, hodling, using it as money.
As a person who teaches logic, I also can't help but point out a logical mistake in the last three sentences (if we take them together, as two premises and a conclusion). Even if Bitcoin is freedom and art is also freedom, that doesn't mean that Bitcoin is art. Simple example: apples are fruit, oranges are fruit, but apples aren't oranges.
Bitcoin isn't subjective to me. In fact, it's all about verifiable things and consensus. There can be different purposes for Bitcoin, but they aren't limitless and largely fall into gambling, trading, hodling, using it as money.
As a person who teaches logic, I also can't help but point out a logical mistake in the last three sentences (if we take them together, as two premises and a conclusion). Even if Bitcoin is freedom and art is also freedom, that doesn't mean that Bitcoin is art. Simple example: apples are fruit, oranges are fruit, but apples aren't oranges.
You are all wrong in our opinion.
Art is merely expression.
We all use bitcoin to express ourselves in a multitude of different ways.
That must mean bitcoin = art?
Or are we missing something?
Art is merely expression.
We all use bitcoin to express ourselves in a multitude of different ways.
That must mean bitcoin = art?
Or are we missing something?
The thing about being disruptive, is that everyone thinks you are wrong at first. Just as many renowned economists think Bitcoin is wrong even today.
Art is not merely expression. Art can be a comfortable building, or a very efficient bridge too. Just taking architecture into consideration.
Damn, you woke up and decided to spit facts! Right on.
Hey! You don't get any closer to Bitcoin by using the adjective art, and even less if you use it to make it rhyme like a poet.
And it is the metaphorical point of the conjunction, it is just that.
In fact, you don't get OT if you use the premises of Bitcoin and put the word art before it.
The point is that we fall into a melancholic, platonic situation where perhaps the least there is Bitcoin discussion.
So,
Ok! : Bitcoin is Art".
And it is the metaphorical point of the conjunction, it is just that.
In fact, you don't get OT if you use the premises of Bitcoin and put the word art before it.
The point is that we fall into a melancholic, platonic situation where perhaps the least there is Bitcoin discussion.
So,
Ok! : Bitcoin is Art".
You are missing the key points of this thread:
1. #NoFullRBF
2. Bitcoin genesis block hidden messages.
3. Bitcoin is at the core of the new deflationary economic system, yet to be named.
4. Bitcoin is a work of art.
5. Bitcoin opens the door for a new aesthetic thinking.
I'll love to further discuss these 5 key points.
You are all wrong in our opinion.
Art is merely expression.
We all use bitcoin to express ourselves in a multitude of different ways.
That must mean bitcoin = art?
Or are we missing something?
Art is merely expression.
We all use bitcoin to express ourselves in a multitude of different ways.
That must mean bitcoin = art?
Or are we missing something?
The thing about being disruptive, is that everyone thinks you are wrong at first. Just as many renowned economists think Bitcoin is wrong even today.
Art is not merely expression. Art can be a comfortable building, or a very efficient bridge too. Just taking architecture into consideration.
You are all wrong in our opinion.
Art is merely expression.
We all use bitcoin to express ourselves in a multitude of different ways.
That must mean bitcoin = art?
Or are we missing something?
Art is merely expression.
We all use bitcoin to express ourselves in a multitude of different ways.
That must mean bitcoin = art?
Or are we missing something?
Hey! You don't get any closer to Bitcoin by using the adjective art, and even less if you use it to make it rhyme like a poet.
And it is the metaphorical point of the conjunction, it is just that.
In fact, you don't get OT if you use the premises of Bitcoin and put the word art before it.
The point is that we fall into a melancholic, platonic situation where perhaps the least there is Bitcoin discussion.
So,
Ok! : Bitcoin is Art".
And it is the metaphorical point of the conjunction, it is just that.
In fact, you don't get OT if you use the premises of Bitcoin and put the word art before it.
The point is that we fall into a melancholic, platonic situation where perhaps the least there is Bitcoin discussion.
So,
Ok! : Bitcoin is Art".
It is one thing to say or use an analogy to express ideas associated with a concept, a fact, etc. and another very different thing is to assume that such a thing is so or to convert the comparative or the analogy into equality.
Art mainly uses tangible elements, as a form of expression to recreate feelings, emotions or what each person may well feel when seeing or observing a creation that has such an end.
Among the categories of art that exist, it does not fit into any, it is an invention and the inventions that have been developed throughout humanity have served to create art or enjoy, the music, for example, the phonograph continues to be a great invention.
Now recreating a phonograph, in a painting, a craft, is or could be a work of art.
Perhaps if someone thinks of writing a book telling the history of bitcoin, it will become a literary work of art based on one of the greatest technological inventions of the 21st century.
Now! if you understand that, anyone can say, Bitcoin is "art" but don't forget inverted commas "".
Art mainly uses tangible elements, as a form of expression to recreate feelings, emotions or what each person may well feel when seeing or observing a creation that has such an end.
Among the categories of art that exist, it does not fit into any, it is an invention and the inventions that have been developed throughout humanity have served to create art or enjoy, the music, for example, the phonograph continues to be a great invention.
Now recreating a phonograph, in a painting, a craft, is or could be a work of art.
Perhaps if someone thinks of writing a book telling the history of bitcoin, it will become a literary work of art based on one of the greatest technological inventions of the 21st century.
Now! if you understand that, anyone can say, Bitcoin is "art" but don't forget inverted commas "".
Bitcoin is Art without the inverted commas and in capital letters because it is at the core of an aesthetical revolution.
Bitcoin is not only at the core of the new deflationary economic system, it goes well beyond those practical purposes.
Bitcoin is The digital store of value, but first it redefined value.
Bitcoin is Art because it will redefine Art.
A new economic system comes together with a new aesthetic thinking.
So what is Art in the days of Bitcoin ?
Art must have all Bitcoin's characteristics in order to be Art in the days of Bitcoin:
Disruptive
Scarce
True
Authorship secure (even in anonymity)
Decentralized
Publicly available
Unstoppable
Coherent with the continuation of the species. (Art in favour of life)
#NoFullRBF
I don't think bitcoin is art in the traditional sense, but it is a great technical or scientific innovation.
Art and science are two different things.
Art and science are two different things.
You could call it that if you want to. Art could be used in a wide array of things. You could call technologies art. Food is even also an art in somebody else's mind. Even practical tools could also be considered art. So are wines, chocolate, fruits, animals, etc. They could exude so much beauty, craftmanship, fine details, etc that you could them pieces of art. The world itself could also be a work of art.
But this description does not actually represent what Bitcoin can actually do in the real practical lives of people.
But this description does not actually represent what Bitcoin can actually do in the real practical lives of people.
Satoshi have innovated for some reason. It have got multiple usage from then, but now only it is slowly getting into the prime purpose for which this is being innovated. Being an art and being a transaction gateway have got difference. Same as that being an investment and being a currency have got difference. To me it is a currency, for someone it can be a art. So, it is upto the users mind and how they take it.
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer electronic currency, just like Satoshi said. When people start calling it something else, like "a swarm of digital hornets", "digital gold", "art", "revolution" and so on, it suggests that it isn't doing well as currency, because otherwise people wouldn't need to create new narratives of what Bitcoin is.
As for art, wikipedia defines it as:
And Bitcoin is neither of those things, it's simply a tool for storing and transferring value online.
As for art, wikipedia defines it as:
Quote
Art is a diverse range of human activity, and resulting product, that involves creative or imaginative talent expressive of technical proficiency, beauty, emotional power, or conceptual ideas.
And Bitcoin is neither of those things, it's simply a tool for storing and transferring value online.
Your answer is too official and rigorous. As CZ said, everyone is Satoshi, so what is Bitcoin? Everyone has an answer. It's just that everyone's mentality and financial situation are different, and their views on Bitcoin are also different. The answers are colorful and there is no correct answer.
Visa and Mastercard networks, are not as secure as Bitcoin.
They're just private centralized transactional networks. They're not a store of value, they are not the core of a new economic system and definitely not works of art.
Unfortunately though, After the Full-RBF option was included into Bitcoin Core V24, Bitcoin is now closer to being just another Visa or Mastercard, and farther away from being the store of value the Blockchain industry needs Bitcoin to be.
When a small percentage of people use strange and unrelated definitions to describe Bitcoin, it shows their mentality not what Bitcoin really is or how it's performing.
If everything was great, people wouldn't be creating these alternative narratives so often. I never saw anyone saying that Visa or Mastercard is a work of art, or that it's the most important thing in human history. Yet billions of people use it every day. Without singing praises to it, without even thinking about it, because it just works.
It is one thing to say or use an analogy to express ideas associated with a concept, a fact, etc. and another very different thing is to assume that such a thing is so or to convert the comparative or the analogy into equality.
Art mainly uses tangible elements, as a form of expression to recreate feelings, emotions or what each person may well feel when seeing or observing a creation that has such an end.
Among the categories of art that exist, it does not fit into any, it is an invention and the inventions that have been developed throughout humanity have served to create art or enjoy, the music, for example, the phonograph continues to be a great invention.
Art mainly uses tangible elements, as a form of expression to recreate feelings, emotions or what each person may well feel when seeing or observing a creation that has such an end.
Among the categories of art that exist, it does not fit into any, it is an invention and the inventions that have been developed throughout humanity have served to create art or enjoy, the music, for example, the phonograph continues to be a great invention.
If we consider anime movies as art and digital paintings and digital characters as art, then why shouldn't we say Bitcoin as virtual currency as art? The one I cited examples is non-tangible because they are digital entities but then many accept them as art because it conveys the feeling or emotion of the creator or conveys the definition of art in it. Isn't Bitcoin created in the same manner? So what makes it an exemption in this case?
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer electronic currency, just like Satoshi said. When people start calling it something else, like "a swarm of digital hornets", "digital gold", "art", "revolution" and so on, it suggests that it isn't doing well as currency, because otherwise people wouldn't need to create new narratives of what Bitcoin is.
When a small percentage of people use strange and unrelated definitions to describe Bitcoin, it shows their mentality not what Bitcoin really is or how it's performing. For example from early days there has been some people who call bitcoin a "Ponzi scheme" but that is not a comment on Bitcoin but on their understanding of Bitcoin (or rather lack of understanding).And also possible that they have more understanding of Bitcoin than the normal Bitcoin enthusiast does.
Jump to: