In finance/economics, the two terms are completely different.
Bitcoin has intrinsic value. The damage and drawbacks created by traditional "currencies" goes against almost every single one of Bitcoin's founding principles.
That is why it is important. By getting the messaging through that it is MONEY and not CURRENCY will make a bigger impact on people, particularly people with financial/economics backgrounds.
Topic: 'Cryptocurrency' a misnomer for Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 371 times)
Bitcoin being considered as money is still up for debate as far as I know. Also, being it as a misnomer, I don't see any problem at all. I don't know why you're so being annoyed from that.
Why I think people consider calling it currency is that it has a units comparable to existing fiat 'currencies' such as USD and such. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has BTC, or satoshi as unit, hence they call it currency. Either way, what's more important is adoption is on its way. And whatever they call it, it's function is much more important.
Why I think people consider calling it currency is that it has a units comparable to existing fiat 'currencies' such as USD and such. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has BTC, or satoshi as unit, hence they call it currency. Either way, what's more important is adoption is on its way. And whatever they call it, it's function is much more important.
I bet %99 of everybody here use them interchangeably.
That's the thing with languages. When enough number of people make the same mistake, it is not a mistake anymore. It becomes the truth.
That's what is going on with these words.
That's the thing with languages. When enough number of people make the same mistake, it is not a mistake anymore. It becomes the truth.
That's what is going on with these words.
I don't understand why some people are hung up on their definitions of "currency" and "money". If you want to have your own definitions for the words, fine. But I don't think other people will reject the commonly accepted meanings in favor of yours.
currency
[ kur-uh n-see, kuhr- ]
noun, plural cur·ren·cies.
1. something that is used as a medium of exchange; money.
...
money
[ muhn-ee ]
noun, plural mon·eys, mon·ies.
1. any circulating medium of exchange, including coins, paper money, and demand deposits.
...
currency
[ kur-uh n-see, kuhr- ]
noun, plural cur·ren·cies.
1. something that is used as a medium of exchange; money.
...
money
[ muhn-ee ]
noun, plural mon·eys, mon·ies.
1. any circulating medium of exchange, including coins, paper money, and demand deposits.
...
I've been annoyed by the application of the term 'cryptocurrency' to Bitcoin.
There is a distinct difference between Currency and Money and these terms are not interchangeable:
Currencies do not have intrinsic value (i.e. fiat paper money, promissory notes) and by extension, are poor stores of value. There have been thousands of currencies in existance, all have become worthless because there is no intrinsic value to support the price, instead currencies rely on its users to give it value. As a consequence many currencies may have fallen with their empires succumbing to regulatory bans, some have died simply because its users did not deem it worthwhile to use and I have no doubt a significant portion are hyperinfalted by their central authorities out of existance.
Money on the other hand has intrinsic value (i.e. gold and silver coins), a gold coin from ancient Eygpt still retains the same purchasing power today.
Bitcoin falls into the category of money, its intrinsic value is supported by its scarcity, verifiability, fungibility, portability, durability and divisbility. While it might not be 'tangible' and useful for physical use cases like jewerly, it also has benefits Gold does not offer, for example, instant settlement of any amount of 'money' over long distances. Further, no central authority can print bitcoins into existance. Bitcoin has also become a legitimate store-of-value which can be attributed to its supply cap and emission schedule, its been profitable for 94% of its existance and has not lost its purchasing power which would be consistent with the traditional definition of 'money'.
All-in-all I think it is incorrect to call Bitcoin 'cryptocurrency', it should be 'cyptomoney'.
Thoughts?
There is a distinct difference between Currency and Money and these terms are not interchangeable:
Currencies do not have intrinsic value (i.e. fiat paper money, promissory notes) and by extension, are poor stores of value. There have been thousands of currencies in existance, all have become worthless because there is no intrinsic value to support the price, instead currencies rely on its users to give it value. As a consequence many currencies may have fallen with their empires succumbing to regulatory bans, some have died simply because its users did not deem it worthwhile to use and I have no doubt a significant portion are hyperinfalted by their central authorities out of existance.
Money on the other hand has intrinsic value (i.e. gold and silver coins), a gold coin from ancient Eygpt still retains the same purchasing power today.
Bitcoin falls into the category of money, its intrinsic value is supported by its scarcity, verifiability, fungibility, portability, durability and divisbility. While it might not be 'tangible' and useful for physical use cases like jewerly, it also has benefits Gold does not offer, for example, instant settlement of any amount of 'money' over long distances. Further, no central authority can print bitcoins into existance. Bitcoin has also become a legitimate store-of-value which can be attributed to its supply cap and emission schedule, its been profitable for 94% of its existance and has not lost its purchasing power which would be consistent with the traditional definition of 'money'.
All-in-all I think it is incorrect to call Bitcoin 'cryptocurrency', it should be 'cyptomoney'.
Thoughts?
Jump to: