Topic: Does Bitcoin need a new theory of money? (Read 3758 times)
In my understanding bitcoin already has a new innovative plan for new financial theory. But we need to set it correct for the right area in order to apply the right formula on right applications. So bitcoin has already new theories, we just need to tune it up.
No, it doesn't need any new theory of money.it is free marketing and any of the people could attain it! And It has all good qualities of money.
basically in short, even if a currency is not as good and as secure as bitcoin, it can be successful just like fiat if a lot of people support it, anything can have great value regardless if people believe and support that currency, after all its all about demand and supply too
Bitcoin however is a pretty cool currency, I don't want to rank it out, I just think it could still get much better, while it matures more. 
Money and Bitcoin are essentially the same thing. The only difference is that money/gold is concrete while Bitcoin is abstract. Bitcoin's existence is completely dependent on man-made structures while gold will still be gold with or without human support. This might not seem like a big deal but incorporating a purely abstract element into the physical world poses some rather awkward(?) challenges. The problem is that you can't back something that's not real with something else that's not real. To make the intangible real, you will need to pledge something tangible from the physical world.
Anything's value to its root comes from the desire to acquire it, e.g. demand. Many things are based on pure information, like music, movie, game, and a long list of abstract financial products. Bitcoin's value is based on a desire to get out of the debt slavery spiral in current monetary system, and how each individual value this is vastly different
In fact, the most important is the ability to exchange into other things. There are many things in the world which might have no use at all for you, or its use is totally beyond the reach of your understanding, but as long as there are some other people willing to pay for it, it will have some market value
In fact all the type of money is backed by people that accept it: Fiat money is backed by the promise of government accepting it as your tax payment, but without merchant accepting it, it would also be worthless. So the promise of the government is just a way to convince people into accepting fiat money.
Bitcoin is also backed by people that accept it, but with a promise of limited supply. And just with this promise, it can gain more and more support from merchant around the world, voluntarily
No, it doesn't need any new theory of money.it is free marketing and any of the people could attain it! And It has all good qualities of money.
Bitcoin does not need new theory of money. We already have enough of theorycrafting about it we know it all. What needs to change is people's perception about bitcoin.
People's perceptions are shaped by theories of money. For example Alan Greenspan said: "I do not understand where the backing of Bitcoin is coming from. There is no fundamental issue of capabilities of repaying it in anything which is universally acceptable, which is either intrinsic value of the currency or the credit or trust of the individual who is issuing the money, whether it's a government or an individual." So he is making a judgement about Bitcoin because it does not conform to the traditional idea that money needs to be backed either by intrinsic value (e.g. gold) or by a centralized issuer (e.g. the state). Agree there is a lot of theorizing about money, but not much of it applies very well to Bitcoin ... Also, money is something that is completely missing from most economic models (e.g. Stephanie Kelton: "Money, debt and finance don’t even fit into many economic models)" which is another sign that the theories aren't working.
Bitcoin is backed by 'consensus'. Because it is young, this consensus is volatile. The appearance of apparent 'governance coups' does not help consensus and thus destroys 'value'. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-19/bitcoin-battered-after-governance-coup
Related article at Bitcoin Magazine:
Is bitcoin money? To most readers the answer will be a resounding yes, but to many people, including former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the answer is less clear. Indeed, one of the things holding back the adoption of cybercurrencies such as bitcoin is that they do not conform with traditional ideas about money.
Read the rest of the article here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21616/quantum-theory-money-value/
Is bitcoin money? To most readers the answer will be a resounding yes, but to many people, including former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the answer is less clear. Indeed, one of the things holding back the adoption of cybercurrencies such as bitcoin is that they do not conform with traditional ideas about money.
Read the rest of the article here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21616/quantum-theory-money-value/
Money and Bitcoin are essentially the same thing. The only difference is that money/gold is concrete while Bitcoin is abstract. Bitcoin's existence is completely dependent on man-made structures while gold will still be gold with or without human support. This might not seem like a big deal but incorporating a purely abstract element into the physical world poses some rather awkward(?) challenges. The problem is that you can't back something that's not real with something else that's not real. To make the intangible real, you will need to pledge something tangible from the physical world.
Fiat is abstract as well. You attribute value to a piece of paper with a photo on it.
While it is tangible and can be held in your hand, this feature shouldn't make a difference in this mobile world.
Money and Bitcoin are essentially the same thing. The only difference is that money/gold is concrete while Bitcoin is abstract. Bitcoin's existence is completely dependent on man-made structures while gold will still be gold with or without human support. This might not seem like a big deal but incorporating a purely abstract element into the physical world poses some rather awkward(?) challenges. The problem is that you can't back something that's not real with something else that's not real. To make the intangible real, you will need to pledge something tangible from the physical world.
I believe many people misunderstand the philosophy of BTC.BTC may not have a bank, privacy is the most important part.You may have miner to generate BTC, however BTC is not for trade or mining.It is for keeping your privacy.If there is a digital or real life BTC bank, all legal would you park your BTCs.I would not.BTC is good as it is.There will be awider use in near future.BTC will never be the main currency, no countries will adopt it as their currency however it will be convertible, preferred currency on many geographies.
BTC is digital gold.
BTC is digital gold.
Bitcoin is digital technological currency. It help us to use digitally like a bank.we can change the tone of bitcoin to dollar rupees.etc.. so a new theory is not needed.
What is money?Beside all the economists defining money in terms of academics, money is the transferable asset which can be used to buy anything tangible or intangible.Money must be widely accepted and convertable.There must be an authority to control emission of the money.
Is BTC widely used?YES
Is BTC convertible?YES
Is there an authority to control the emission?YES and/or no.No official authority but each member is oart of the authority.Each miner is a part of this authority however there is no selected / elected authority.
Is BTC widely used?YES
Is BTC convertible?YES
Is there an authority to control the emission?YES and/or no.No official authority but each member is oart of the authority.Each miner is a part of this authority however there is no selected / elected authority.
Of course they need a some new system to track what is happing in bitcoin otherwise no government will consider it as a real currency.
[...]
Who gives value to something?
Who gives value to something?
The users, through their demand to hold in reserve.
Yes, I think bitcoin and the cryptocurrencies in generally need a new economic theory because the actual economic system isn't compatilble with them.
Who gives value to something?
that's right! there are more and more places we can use bitcoin but also we still use 'traditional' currencies and they both should harmonize Who gives value to something?
You are really started to get on my nerves now, bro. Why do you not shut up when you have nothing better to say? If punishments are not legal and according to your psychology, karma will settle its deeds with me, awesome. Greece will say the same to eurozone that their debts will be settled by karma. The taxes Miracal was talking about, were the taxes government implies on bitcoin, you have no idea what capital gains mean and anything about economy, yet you lie about comparing taxes and shit. Grow up dude, its 2k15.
Why should I lie to you? Let me explain this, I just tell you what I have heard and read, so you can refute my opinion with your opinion too, so you all could teach me what you know with your knowledge. It sounds you're an expert in economy. Good luck!Don't worry falconer, go prove him wrong and reply back with your theory, research and study of your theory in which you compared taxes. The best way to shut up somebody is to prove them wrong, but it might get a little a little too time consuming so I hope you hurry up soon. Meanwhile me and grebit will just wait somewhere, nearby this thread
Bitcoin is certainly not conventional by any means, and there are no economic laws or theories supporting the currency. Most major economists advise to steer clear of Bitcoin, and use the many theories and factors they have been taught to support their claim. Bitcoin is certainly not a bad currency, but there is currently nothing substantial to verify it's past and future success.
There are a lot of economic theories which support the currency, let alone focus on its block chain technology and expand ahead in more detail, there are some block chain theories you need to search up, now I don't know about economics and how they are taught to support their claim but I can agree on the fact that there's nothing to verify its future success, there was no way of knowing the success of notes and coins and gold and barter and everything else which has ever been used in trade, but it did work out for them as they slowly evolved their transaction methods into much simpler and better ways. Its time for a bitcoins, the digital currency and I have faith in the project
Bitcoin is certainly not conventional by any means, and there are no economic laws or theories supporting the currency. Most major economists advise to steer clear of Bitcoin, and use the many theories and factors they have been taught to support their claim. Bitcoin is certainly not a bad currency, but there is currently nothing substantial to verify it's past and future success.
i like a lot that chart but money its time too and that does not changes like money can also buy a bit of health and be even life (living for money) yes we also need to keep doing that.
So for bitcoin the theory of money is : As long as its economy grows, there is no upper limit for its value
Wait till banks and fractional reserve banking come to Bitcoin. The limited supply won't look very limited after all.
People used gold as money for a long time... Until bank notes backed by gold started circulating. We all know where that ended.
I guess nowadays people are much more aware of bank's tricks than hundreds of years ago
MTGOX was using FRB, and it failed dragging down all its depositors (In fact exchanges are more complicated financial institutions than banks, since they deal with multiple currencies at the same time while banks typically deal with only one type of currency). That will be a lesson for all the bitcoiners who trust centralized organization. Unlike fiat money system, there is definitely no bailout for bitcoin banks, the bank failure rate will be too high for normal people to trust them, it is much easier for them to learn some cold storage skill
Cold storage and security measures are one thing. People might turn greedy.
If banks offer interest on bitcoin deposits, people might still be tempted to part with their money.
yeah, not everybody in the bitcoin community is as passionate about the technology as they are about money. In a scenario where the governments decide to ban bitcoin but in a hypothetical situation where half the world sides for bitcoin and invest all of it into bitcoin and half the world scared from the banks, the result of bitcoin's failure or success would be known the next day... Who would you pick in such a situation?
So for bitcoin the theory of money is : As long as its economy grows, there is no upper limit for its value
Wait till banks and fractional reserve banking come to Bitcoin. The limited supply won't look very limited after all.
People used gold as money for a long time... Until bank notes backed by gold started circulating. We all know where that ended.
I guess nowadays people are much more aware of bank's tricks than hundreds of years ago
MTGOX was using FRB, and it failed dragging down all its depositors (In fact exchanges are more complicated financial institutions than banks, since they deal with multiple currencies at the same time while banks typically deal with only one type of currency). That will be a lesson for all the bitcoiners who trust centralized organization. Unlike fiat money system, there is definitely no bailout for bitcoin banks, the bank failure rate will be too high for normal people to trust them, it is much easier for them to learn some cold storage skill
Cold storage and security measures are one thing. People might turn greedy.
If banks offer interest on bitcoin deposits, people might still be tempted to part with their money.
Jump to: