Pages:
Author

Topic: Can Bitcoin replace the dollar? - page 2. (Read 3985 times)

sr. member
Activity: 410
Merit: 250
December 09, 2013, 06:54:57 PM
#21
1) Pricing Something in Something.

What is a Price?

"In ordinary usage, price is the quantity of payment or compensation given by one party to another in return for goods or services." WIKI

I can price something in something.

Example 1: A ocean front villa costs 10 Ferrari.

This statement has meaning and everybody will have an opinion on whether this price is to high or to low as the good (villa) and the price (10 ferrari) have value (to society, not necessarily the individual). A Ferrari has value because it is pretty, a form of transport and fast.

Exampe 2: A ocean front villa costs 1000 ounces of gold.

This statement also has meaning and everybody will have an opinion on whether this price is to high or to low as the good (villa) and the price (1000 gold) have value (to society, no necessarily the individual). Golds value is that it is pretty and rare. Everybody can understand the concept of pretty.


1) a) When people judge how fair a trade is for a villa for 1000oz of gold they aren't judging the villa against how "pretty" gold is.  If that were the case then something (villa in this case) would always be judged to be worth the exact same amount of gold since gold has remained equally pretty for as long as we've used it. b) In fact what happens is that people think of what other things the villa is worth as well as what other things the gold is worth to determine if the trade is fair or not.  In this case "other things" would be money of some sort most likely (that's essentially it's job after all).  

2) Much of gold's value is speculative, it is not valued based on it's utility or "intrinsic value" as some like to call it.  So the villa is being compared to a speculative value placed on something, replace that with it being compared against the speculative value of bitcoins and it's really the same difference.


1) a) No because sometimes people judge the worth of the villa higher and sometimes lower. The same goes for gold. Sometimes pretty things are in high demand and sometimes they are in low demand.
b) money is not the point at this moment. I am only displaying how a comparison of the value of valuable things (somethings) has meaning.

2) No its not. I am not referencing the price of gold. Yes the price of gold can change. But its value for society cant change. We will always think its pretty (this has been burnt into our brain). Its like water: It will always be necessary for humanity. Now the price of water can change. But we are not talking about this. Again in the section you quote I am showing how you can compare the value of somethings with one another. This has nothing to do with price.

Now Bitcoin itself has not value. I cant do anything with a bitcoin. That I can give it to you at little cost does not change this fact. This part comes later (Something for Nothing).  Bitcoin does however have a price. This price can change in future just like golds price can (we are in agreement here).  
For people using Gold as a store of wealth, isn't it's "value" really just determined by what someone can trade for it on the market (price)? 

If someone stores their wealth in Gold they will want to someday trade back that Gold for something else again.  What they can trade that Gold back for will be determined by the speculative price of Gold and not Gold's utility or how pretty it is. 

2) If anything all Gold's utility, industrial usage and being pretty (what you consider it's "value" right?) does is put a floor on Gold's price if it's speculative value were to shrink away some day.  A floor low enough that Gold would no longer be considered a good store of value and where most of it's holders would have dumped it on it's way to the floor price.

2) See people holding gold bars like gold for itself. They like the look of it. Yes they have not made jewelry out of it. But that is irrelevant. You can not say what part of the market price is down to it being held and what part is down to it actually being used for jewelry. People who hold it only hold it because they know that it has value in and of itself. Because they know its pretty and decorative and thus has value. If it had no value to begin with they would not be able to use it as a store of value, as something that has no value can not have value in the future when you want to retrieve the value.

Again NOBODY would be holding gold, is it has NO value. Therefore every bit of golds market price is dependent on it being pretty. Nobody would have started to save something that is nothing (no value).

Gold became valuable because it possesses various qualities that make it useful as a medium of exchange and a store of wealth, let's call this Gold's utility.  It's an element that is scarce, prohibitively costly to create, doesn't tarnish or corrode over time, more malleable than other metals making it more easily divisible etc.

Most people hold gold for it's speculative value that was built up due to it being ideal to fit the medium of a store of wealth due to it's utility.

Bitcoin became valuable because it possesses various qualities that make it useful as a medium of exchange and a store of wealth as well.  Some direct parallels can be drawn.

I think the problem is that you have some antiquated notion that only corporeal utility traits should be counted as "value" when in reality value is subjective and is whatever the collective marketplace decides on for any asset, virtual or otherwise.

I think we have fundamentally different definitions of what constitutes value and the role it plays in a commodity or currency's price.  To sway me to your side of the argument you will have to demonstrate how the value of Gold to be used in jewelry is fundamentally different than the value in a given utility trait of the Bitcoin network.  Gold being used as jewelry and Bitcoin's ability to transfer wealth over large distances almost instantly between any 2 parties with no third party intermediary are both judged as valuable by various people.  Why does one impart "value" to Gold while the other doesn't for Bitcoin?
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
December 09, 2013, 06:33:08 PM
#20
these tired arguments have been debunked so many times. but you know that dont you. you arnt here to have an open minded discussion. you are here to spread fud. ignored.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
December 09, 2013, 06:31:13 PM
#19
porc is the most long-winded troll I have ever seen.

Bitcoins will never completely replace all the other forms of money, but they don't have to. 1) Bitcoins are great for some things, not as great for others. I see bitcoins taking over the role of gold and USD as a reserve currency. 2) Bitcoins are also great for making international payments and online payments.

3) People keep saying that taxes somehow make everybody accept fiat dollars, that is silly. You could do all your business in bitcoins and the at the end of the year just trade the little bit you need into fiat to pay taxes. If bitcoin catches on, the government could even add a way to pay taxes using bitcoins; the government IT people are notoriously incompetent, but making a bitcoin payment processor can't be much harder than the system they currently use to collect tax payments electronically. The US government already holds hundreds of thousands of bitcoins, they might decide they like them.

4) While the price of bitcoins is currently so volatile that pricing things using them is hard, that will change over time. Already there are a handful of people who earn income in bitcoins, and they say it really changes the way you view prices. As more people switch to the mindset of pricing things in bitcoins, and as large contracts are made in bitcoins, and as the financial sector finally build strong mechanisms for options and futures on the bitcoin price, the price will stabilize and bitcoins will become more readily usable for pricing in contracts.

1) For what things are Bitcoin great? What can I do with a Bitcoin?

How can something of value (gold) be replaced by something of no value (bitcoin)?

2) To what extend are they great to make international payments? If I pay with nothing (bitcoin) for something (goods), how is that a great payment method?

3) Straw man. Government forces us to use dollars, they make any other media of exchange use either unpractical or if turns out to be practical despite their laws (Liberty Gold), they make it illegal. Its not about only paying taxes in it. Its that they enforce the media of exchange monopoly of the dollar. They force us to accept dollars for payment fo debts as well.

4) Why should the price of something that has no inherent value whatsoever stabilize? After all I cant find a fair market value, as it has no value to begin with.

Simple Questions. Instead of answering especially question 1) you call me a troll.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
December 09, 2013, 06:25:08 PM
#18
1) Pricing Something in Something.

What is a Price?

"In ordinary usage, price is the quantity of payment or compensation given by one party to another in return for goods or services." WIKI

I can price something in something.

Example 1: A ocean front villa costs 10 Ferrari.

This statement has meaning and everybody will have an opinion on whether this price is to high or to low as the good (villa) and the price (10 ferrari) have value (to society, not necessarily the individual). A Ferrari has value because it is pretty, a form of transport and fast.

Exampe 2: A ocean front villa costs 1000 ounces of gold.

This statement also has meaning and everybody will have an opinion on whether this price is to high or to low as the good (villa) and the price (1000 gold) have value (to society, no necessarily the individual). Golds value is that it is pretty and rare. Everybody can understand the concept of pretty.


1) a) When people judge how fair a trade is for a villa for 1000oz of gold they aren't judging the villa against how "pretty" gold is.  If that were the case then something (villa in this case) would always be judged to be worth the exact same amount of gold since gold has remained equally pretty for as long as we've used it. b) In fact what happens is that people think of what other things the villa is worth as well as what other things the gold is worth to determine if the trade is fair or not.  In this case "other things" would be money of some sort most likely (that's essentially it's job after all).  

2) Much of gold's value is speculative, it is not valued based on it's utility or "intrinsic value" as some like to call it.  So the villa is being compared to a speculative value placed on something, replace that with it being compared against the speculative value of bitcoins and it's really the same difference.


1) a) No because sometimes people judge the worth of the villa higher and sometimes lower. The same goes for gold. Sometimes pretty things are in high demand and sometimes they are in low demand.
b) money is not the point at this moment. I am only displaying how a comparison of the value of valuable things (somethings) has meaning.

2) No its not. I am not referencing the price of gold. Yes the price of gold can change. But its value for society cant change. We will always think its pretty (this has been burnt into our brain). Its like water: It will always be necessary for humanity. Now the price of water can change. But we are not talking about this. Again in the section you quote I am showing how you can compare the value of somethings with one another. This has nothing to do with price.

Now Bitcoin itself has not value. I cant do anything with a bitcoin. That I can give it to you at little cost does not change this fact. This part comes later (Something for Nothing).  Bitcoin does however have a price. This price can change in future just like golds price can (we are in agreement here).  
For people using Gold as a store of wealth, isn't it's "value" really just determined by what someone can trade for it on the market (price)?  

If someone stores their wealth in Gold they will want to someday trade back that Gold for something else again.  What they can trade that Gold back for will be determined by the speculative price of Gold and not Gold's utility or how pretty it is.  

2) If anything all Gold's utility, industrial usage and being pretty (what you consider it's "value" right?) does is put a floor on Gold's price if it's speculative value were to shrink away some day.  A floor low enough that Gold would no longer be considered a good store of value and where most of it's holders would have dumped it on it's way to the floor price.

2) See people holding gold bars like gold for itself. They like the look of it. Yes they have not made jewelry out of it. But that is irrelevant. You can not say what part of the market price is down to it being held and what part is down to it actually being used for jewelry. People who hold it only hold it because they know that it has value in and of itself. Because they know its pretty and decorative and thus has value. If it had no value to begin with they would not be able to use it as a store of value, as something that has no value can not have value in the future when you want to retrieve the value.

Again NOBODY would be holding gold, if it had NO value. Therefore every bit of golds market price is dependent on it being pretty. Nobody would have started to save something that is nothing (no value).



legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1005
December 09, 2013, 05:49:50 PM
#17
Dollar's and Euro's value comes from use. The fact that there is countless contracts and such using these currencies. Bitcoin theoretically could take the same place.

But, it has some issues in replacing it. Main problem is why would majority of people trade euros and dollars to bitcoin specifically. They would lose some not minor part of value they hold to early adopters. Is the value of what BTC provides that much higher than losses?

And then there is the other issues like technical questions of scaling of BTC. If it doesn't: we could adopt systems now used in payment processing and digital banking, but the similar costs would still be there.

As such, I don't believe BTC in replacing any large currency.

Crypto might be possible, in controlled forced mass adoption.

when you buy bitcoins you don't lose money (or value at least)

if you buy $1000 worth of bitcoins (let's say 1 BTC = $1000 at this point) you can then use the BTC to buy something worth 1 BTC.

It would be the same for 'buying' euros with dollars.

Yes you may gain more or less value depending on the exchange rate, but unless bitcoin crashes (unlikely) you will not lose your money.
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1005
December 09, 2013, 05:46:33 PM
#16
the value of the dollar has nothing to do with gold.

the only thing giving the dollar value right now is the petrodollar status, which is by the way declining, and this is also the reason of the wars in the middle east.

the dollar will likely be pretty much worthless in the near future.

To answer your question:

Theoretically it could replace the dollar, but i don't think humanity is ready for it yet, and it probably won't happen in the next few years. Maybe in the next decade, or century.

humanity is not ready to exchange nothing for something. And it never will be.


they are perfectly happy to exchange toilet paper fiat for something.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
December 09, 2013, 03:58:10 PM
#15
Quick answer:No.
 
As long as there are taxes denominated in "government-issued" money,
this government fiat money will continue to exist.

I agree.  Taxes are one issue.  The govt has a vested interest in making sure their currency remains the reserve currency so that it can issue as much of it as it wants.  The only way around this is if people somehow agree to let the govt "take over" BTC.  Which I don't see us doing.  I fear it will remain stuck on the peripheral for the time being.  Maybe if it was easier to trade back and forth between fiat and btc it could make more progress (but I know this goes against what some btc users believe is right).
You give me fiat and an address, I give you bitcoins. Easy. Right now we mostly use exchanges, but as adoption grows it will become common, eventually standard, to deal this way.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
December 09, 2013, 03:56:25 PM
#14
A bitcoin-based economy could never function as long as we also have usury (interest on loans). It's not the dollar that matters, it's the fundamentals of our economic system.
sr. member
Activity: 410
Merit: 250
December 09, 2013, 02:39:21 PM
#13
1) Pricing Something in Something.

What is a Price?

"In ordinary usage, price is the quantity of payment or compensation given by one party to another in return for goods or services." WIKI

I can price something in something.

Example 1: A ocean front villa costs 10 Ferrari.

This statement has meaning and everybody will have an opinion on whether this price is to high or to low as the good (villa) and the price (10 ferrari) have value (to society, not necessarily the individual). A Ferrari has value because it is pretty, a form of transport and fast.

Exampe 2: A ocean front villa costs 1000 ounces of gold.

This statement also has meaning and everybody will have an opinion on whether this price is to high or to low as the good (villa) and the price (1000 gold) have value (to society, no necessarily the individual). Golds value is that it is pretty and rare. Everybody can understand the concept of pretty.


1) a) When people judge how fair a trade is for a villa for 1000oz of gold they aren't judging the villa against how "pretty" gold is.  If that were the case then something (villa in this case) would always be judged to be worth the exact same amount of gold since gold has remained equally pretty for as long as we've used it. b) In fact what happens is that people think of what other things the villa is worth as well as what other things the gold is worth to determine if the trade is fair or not.  In this case "other things" would be money of some sort most likely (that's essentially it's job after all).  

2) Much of gold's value is speculative, it is not valued based on it's utility or "intrinsic value" as some like to call it.  So the villa is being compared to a speculative value placed on something, replace that with it being compared against the speculative value of bitcoins and it's really the same difference.


1) a) No because sometimes people judge the worth of the villa higher and sometimes lower. The same goes for gold. Sometimes pretty things are in high demand and sometimes they are in low demand.
b) money is not the point at this moment. I am only displaying how a comparison of the value of valuable things (somethings) has meaning.

2) No its not. I am not referencing the price of gold. Yes the price of gold can change. But its value for society cant change. We will always think its pretty (this has been burnt into our brain). Its like water: It will always be necessary for humanity. Now the price of water can change. But we are not talking about this. Again in the section you quote I am showing how you can compare the value of somethings with one another. This has nothing to do with price.

Now Bitcoin itself has not value. I cant do anything with a bitcoin. That I can give it to you at little cost does not change this fact. This part comes later (Something for Nothing).  Bitcoin does however have a price. This price can change in future just like golds price can (we are in agreement here).  
For people using Gold as a store of wealth, isn't it's "value" really just determined by what someone can trade for it on the market (price)? 

If someone stores their wealth in Gold they will want to someday trade back that Gold for something else again.  What they can trade that Gold back for will be determined by the speculative price of Gold and not Gold's utility or how pretty it is. 

If anything all Gold's utility, industrial usage and being pretty (what you consider it's "value" right?) does is put a floor on Gold's price if it's speculative value were to shrink away some day.  A floor low enough that Gold would no longer be considered a good store of value and where most of it's holders would have dumped it on it's way to the floor price.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye
December 09, 2013, 01:28:05 PM
#12
porc is the most long-winded troll I have ever seen.

Bitcoins will never completely replace all the other forms of money, but they don't have to. Bitcoins are great for some things, not as great for others. I see bitcoins taking over the role of gold and USD as a reserve currency. Bitcoins are also great for making international payments and online payments.

People keep saying that taxes somehow make everybody accept fiat dollars, that is silly. You could do all your business in bitcoins and the at the end of the year just trade the little bit you need into fiat to pay taxes. If bitcoin catches on, the government could even add a way to pay taxes using bitcoins; the government IT people are notoriously incompetent, but making a bitcoin payment processor can't be much harder than the system they currently use to collect tax payments electronically. The US government already holds hundreds of thousands of bitcoins, they might decide they like them.

While the price of bitcoins is currently so volatile that pricing things using them is hard, that will change over time. Already there are a handful of people who earn income in bitcoins, and they say it really changes the way you view prices. As more people switch to the mindset of pricing things in bitcoins, and as large contracts are made in bitcoins, and as the financial sector finally build strong mechanisms for options and futures on the bitcoin price, the price will stabilize and bitcoins will become more readily usable for pricing in contracts.
member
Activity: 119
Merit: 10
December 09, 2013, 12:58:42 PM
#11
jajajajaj, this topic is insane
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Carpe Diem
December 09, 2013, 12:44:41 PM
#10
Quick answer:No.
 
As long as there are taxes denominated in "government-issued" money,
this government fiat money will continue to exist.

I agree.  Taxes are one issue.  The govt has a vested interest in making sure their currency remains the reserve currency so that it can issue as much of it as it wants.  The only way around this is if people somehow agree to let the govt "take over" BTC.  Which I don't see us doing.  I fear it will remain stuck on the peripheral for the time being.  Maybe if it was easier to trade back and forth between fiat and btc it could make more progress (but I know this goes against what some btc users believe is right).
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
December 09, 2013, 12:25:49 PM
#9
Quick answer:No.
 
As long as there are taxes denominated in "government-issued" money,
this government fiat money will continue to exist.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
December 09, 2013, 12:20:27 PM
#8
Dollar's and Euro's value comes from use. The fact that there is countless contracts and such using these currencies. Bitcoin theoretically could take the same place.

But, it has some issues in replacing it. Main problem is why would majority of people trade euros and dollars to bitcoin specifically. They would lose some not minor part of value they hold to early adopters. Is the value of what BTC provides that much higher than losses?

And then there is the other issues like technical questions of scaling of BTC. If it doesn't: we could adopt systems now used in payment processing and digital banking, but the similar costs would still be there.

As such, I don't believe BTC in replacing any large currency.

Crypto might be possible, in controlled forced mass adoption.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
December 09, 2013, 12:10:51 PM
#7
the value of the dollar has nothing to do with gold.

the only thing giving the dollar value right now is the petrodollar status, which is by the way declining, and this is also the reason of the wars in the middle east.

the dollar will likely be pretty much worthless in the near future.

To answer your question:

Theoretically it could replace the dollar, but i don't think humanity is ready for it yet, and it probably won't happen in the next few years. Maybe in the next decade, or century.

humanity is not ready to exchange nothing for something. And it never will be.
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1005
December 09, 2013, 12:01:20 PM
#6
the value of the dollar has nothing to do with gold.

the only thing giving the dollar value right now is the petrodollar status, which is by the way declining, and this is also the reason of the wars in the middle east.

the dollar will likely be pretty much worthless in the near future.

To answer your question:

Theoretically it could replace the dollar, but i don't think humanity is ready for it yet, and it probably won't happen in the next few years. Maybe in the next decade, or century.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
December 09, 2013, 09:41:37 AM
#5
No, Bitcoin never can replace dollar. Can you imagine bitcoin without exchange Dollar? All our minds are thinking in Dollars, euros, etc...
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1014
In Satoshi I Trust
December 09, 2013, 08:11:37 AM
#4
short answer no. does it want to replace it: no.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
December 09, 2013, 07:59:57 AM
#3
1) Pricing Something in Something.

What is a Price?

"In ordinary usage, price is the quantity of payment or compensation given by one party to another in return for goods or services." WIKI

I can price something in something.

Example 1: A ocean front villa costs 10 Ferrari.

This statement has meaning and everybody will have an opinion on whether this price is to high or to low as the good (villa) and the price (10 ferrari) have value (to society, not necessarily the individual). A Ferrari has value because it is pretty, a form of transport and fast.

Exampe 2: A ocean front villa costs 1000 ounces of gold.

This statement also has meaning and everybody will have an opinion on whether this price is to high or to low as the good (villa) and the price (1000 gold) have value (to society, no necessarily the individual). Golds value is that it is pretty and rare. Everybody can understand the concept of pretty.


1) a) When people judge how fair a trade is for a villa for 1000oz of gold they aren't judging the villa against how "pretty" gold is.  If that were the case then something (villa in this case) would always be judged to be worth the exact same amount of gold since gold has remained equally pretty for as long as we've used it. b) In fact what happens is that people think of what other things the villa is worth as well as what other things the gold is worth to determine if the trade is fair or not.  In this case "other things" would be money of some sort most likely (that's essentially it's job after all).  

2) Much of gold's value is speculative, it is not valued based on it's utility or "intrinsic value" as some like to call it.  So the villa is being compared to a speculative value placed on something, replace that with it being compared against the speculative value of bitcoins and it's really the same difference.


1) a) No because sometimes people judge the worth of the villa higher and sometimes lower. The same goes for gold. Sometimes pretty things are in high demand and sometimes they are in low demand.
b) money is not the point at this moment. I am only displaying how a comparison of the value of valuable things (somethings) has meaning.

2) No its not. I am not referencing the price of gold. Yes the price of gold can change. But its value for society cant change. We will always think its pretty (this has been burnt into our brain). Its like water: It will always be necessary for humanity. Now the price of water can change. But we are not talking about this. Again in the section you quote I am showing how you can compare the value of somethings with one another. This has nothing to do with price.

Now Bitcoin itself has not value. I cant do anything with a bitcoin. That I can give it to you at little cost does not change this fact. This part comes later (Something for Nothing).  Bitcoin does however have a price. This price can change in future just like golds price can (we are in agreement here).  
sr. member
Activity: 410
Merit: 250
December 09, 2013, 07:40:52 AM
#2
1) Pricing Something in Something.

What is a Price?

"In ordinary usage, price is the quantity of payment or compensation given by one party to another in return for goods or services." WIKI

I can price something in something.

Example 1: A ocean front villa costs 10 Ferrari.

This statement has meaning and everybody will have an opinion on whether this price is to high or to low as the good (villa) and the price (10 ferrari) have value (to society, not necessarily the individual). A Ferrari has value because it is pretty, a form of transport and fast.

Exampe 2: A ocean front villa costs 1000 ounces of gold.

This statement also has meaning and everybody will have an opinion on whether this price is to high or to low as the good (villa) and the price (1000 gold) have value (to society, no necessarily the individual). Golds value is that it is pretty and rare. Everybody can understand the concept of pretty.

Didn't have to go far into this post.

When people judge how fair a trade is for a villa for 1000oz of gold they aren't judging the villa against how "pretty" gold is.  If that were the case then something (villa in this case) would always be judged to be worth the exact same amount of gold since gold has remained equally pretty for as long as we've used it.  In fact what happens is that people think of what other things the villa is worth as well as what other things the gold is worth to determine if the trade is fair or not.  In this case "other things" would be money of some sort most likely (that's essentially it's job after all). 

Much of gold's value is speculative, it is not valued based on it's utility or "intrinsic value" as some like to call it.  So the villa is being compared to a speculative value placed on something, replace that with it being compared against the speculative value of bitcoins and it's really the same difference.

Thus the "something for something" vs "something for nothing" comparison falls flat in my opinion.
Pages:
Jump to: