Topic: Bitcoin is NOT a currency debate! - page 7. (Read 6199 times)

you're saying this only because the price isn't stable like other currency, but the price need plenty of time and many people to be stable

if the price would have been stable you would say the same thing? i doubt


yeah it is a store of value unlike the fiat garbabe which have 100% infaltion, bitcoin is based on deflation which mean that its value will only grow at the end, how you can not consider this a store of value is beyond me

this is always what i say and concerns me.

bitcoin is not "YET" a currency, you can use it as a currency but it is still an investment with somewhat of a high risk.

this is why all the places that are accepting bitcoin, they immediately dump it for fiat instead. so as for your example if the price goes up to $300, you won't get a 1BTC refund instead you will get ~0.83BTC refund because the shop is dealing in fiat not bitcoin. they are just accepting bitcoin which is then converted into fiat.

also that is why you will always see the prices in USD and the equivalent in bitcoin, not a fixed bitcoin price.

Yes right now it does not resemble a stable currency. I see it currently as a paradigm shift in the history of wagering. It's almost exclusively used for gambling, and speculating on its own value. Never before has there been such a pure form of wagering in history. So forget about examples where you buy jeans! Instead you can short your shorts! You can buy some shorts (clothing that is) right before you think something will happen that will lower the price of a bitcoin, then wait and if it falls, return your shorts, and get the usd value of the shorts you shorted (in bitcoin) in return. Welcome to the future  

This OP sounds exactly like when I debated a user over whether Bitcoin is actually an unregulated lottery, months ago.
It is possible this OP is just arguing for argument sake.

FWIW, currently, BTC is a commodity or a property.
It has not reached currency ability or status.
Satoshi Nakamoto's original intention was to create a currency.
That is many years away.

Until the retail shop declares its income in Dollars or Euros it will most likely pay you back the refund in that currency. So if you paid 300$ for a pair of jeans in Bitcoins, say 1 BTC, and X time later you want a refund by specifying that you want your asset back (BTC, which is different than the shops currency) then the retailer will convert the 300$ for you into 0.5 or 1.5 BTC, regardless. I would do it this way if I was a "normal" retailer as it is 1. fair for my shop, 2. my balance sheet is OK and 3. the customer got back his money in a form he wanted.

If you are a bitcoin based shop and you believe in BTC and in that 1BTC=1BTC no matter what, then you may pay back the original purchase amount BTC.

All this probably wouldn't matter too much for the customer if the Bitcoin price was relatively stable.

correct.

I appreciate all of your efforts and constructive arguments. I wanted to start a debate and fuel a discussion that could help the community to view this revolutionary technology not through the prism of conventional terms such as currency or legal tender that actually shape many opinion now but to allow us to consider other ways that this technology can be understood.

I have touch upon this in my first post. If it is a tech and not a currency why are we talking so much about regulation? Compare bitcoin to Visa. Visa is not a regulated business.  Why should bitcoin be?

Ok you buy jeans for 300 usd and the fed prints tons of money you return the jeans and get 300 usd but those 300 arent worth 300. Because of the printing the jeans now cost 400

Many important messages were not allowed through email when it first came out - had to go through the postal service.

Today the IRA in many countries extensively use email to communicate with tax payers. Etc etc.

No one demanded bitcoin to be a legal tender. Not even it needs to be a currency. It is a medium of exchange, whose accpetance is growing because of the inherent features it brings along. That's it. So, what is your point ?

quote from U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY website about legal tender question

"Legal Tender Status
 
I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy."

All good gents!!! But you are confused. If you call tomatoes apples it won't make them apples.

Bitcoin is not a legal tender which is the primary function of currency or funds. As defined by Royal Mint:

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes. In order to comply with the very strict rules governing an actual legal tender it is necessary, for example, actually to offer the exact amount due because no change can be demanded.

So, bitcoin can only be considered legal tender in this case in the UK only after a court can accept it to settle court fees. Unlit then in the strict definition bitcoin is not a currency. However, it does not stop parties to agree between each other to accept it. But it does not make it currency/funds/legal tender.

For example apple pay, they do not pass currency between a iphone and a point of sale, they pass token and the settlement takes place on the background. With bitcoin it is exactly the same but settlement function is brought out to an exchange where a party can exchange bitcoin/token for legal tender.

BITCOIN it can be used like currency

And you can spend worldwide

In the future what do you think people will use for smart wallets?

Bitcoin is a protocol... just like SMTP.

A bitcoin is a medium of exchange... just like USD.


No. It does not come naturally. It should depend on the contract between the buyer and seller. Just think about your example in terms of Zimbabwean dollar instead of USD and imagine the same incident happening at the time of Zimbabwean dollar crash.

I believe that it is considered a currency. Just look at the definition of currency
Hmm.. It seems that they all pretty much agree that currency is used for exchange, also known as money. Now, by these defnitions, Bitcoin is a currency, it is a something in circulation in general use (use by many people) that is being used as a medium of exchange, also known as money. Except it is not used by a particular nation.

Do you know what currency makes currency or funds for that case?

The fact that a merchant in a particular country has the legal obligation to accept it. That simple fact above all the rest makes it currency/funds. This means that a merchant in the US can not refuse to accept USD for a product or service. As to bitcoin no such obligation exists hence NOT A CURRENCY. May be a token of some sort but not a currency.

Bitcoin is can be commodity and can be a currency too, it's depends on you used it, you look at the value of btc to fiat exchange, and you see bitcoin as commodity which only can exchange to fiat only, you need see is widely, now a lot merchant or company accept bitcoin as payment processor, it's prove if bitcoin can be a currency.

You can store value in it. Even fiat currency fluctuates. If you store your fiat money in a bank it likely wont have the same purchasing power by the time you retire.


Wrong. You can buy plenty of things with it or just hold it as an investment. Is fiat money worthless if you don't spend it?


It's all of those things.


The fact that you can buy things with it and people accept it as payment for things, therefore a currency.

Can you use bitcoin a month without looking at the value compared to dollar? A year?

With any real currency you can use it for years without even knowing how the value is compared to dollar. It doesent matter since both consumers and merchants operate in the same currency all the time.

Hmm currency.

Is bitcoin a store of valuу? I guess not? The only intrinsic value it has is the ability to move value around. If you do not exchange value into bitcoin i.e. USD/BTC it would be worthless.

it is a medium of exchange, which does not make a currency. Blockchain is a payment rail and bitcoin is medium of exchange.

Or explain to me what makes it a currency?