Topic: First biological theory of money supports Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 392 times)

That's what most people fail to take into account

But the crypto aspect in cryptocurrencies is just a technical peculiarity, not a defining feature, so depending on your definition of "crypto", fiat money can also by considered "crypto" as cryptography is definitely involved somewhere in the modern fiat too. In this way, the difference between fiat and cryptocurrencies lies elsewhere. If you ask me, the great divide is in who controls the money. With cryptocurrencies, there is no central entity or agency while with fiat it is the government or whoever controls it from behind the scenes (power elites, masons, aliens, etc)

That is more or less the idea, but the article explains that some cryptocurrencies (like Bitcoin) should be called digital money. In the same way, gold is money, but a gold coin with a nominal value should be called credit. Here is an excerpt:

'Created in 2009 by Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin is commonly called a decentralised digital currency. However, according to the present definition of money, Bitcoin is simply the first form of digital money, as opposed to credit that has been issued digitally. Both digital credit and digital money are accounting ledgers that are stored in networks of computers. In the case of credit, the network is centralised, meaning that the authenticity of the ledger is set by a single authority. This is typically a nation-state that decides what credit belongs to whom and how much of it can there be in circulation. By contrast, the authenticity of the Bitcoin ledger is decided by a cooperative process called proof-of-work [36]. Any computer that is connected to the internet is free to participate in the process by adhering to a certain protocol. The protocol rewards those ‘mining’ computers with new coins at a decreasing rate that mimics the scarcity of gold. At root, however, the proof-of-work is a mathematical solution to the problem of coordinating different computers on the internet, in the same way as money in general is a solution to the problem of coordinating different people in nature.'

What you missing is the fact to realize difference between crypto currencies and fiat currencies. Digital is just expression, fiat is digital long before bitcoin, people use paying cards for decades. Where is the difference? Of course in what kind of principles currency is using for generation, distribution and transactions. Bitcoin is the first crypto-digital-currency build on blockchain technology.

I'm a biologist who specializes on genes myself, and yes, we do believe that there is this certain gene that controls our greed, selfishness and lust for money and power that has been the cause of war since the beginning of human civilization. I would be keen to take part on this research and place my inputs myself, and one facet of this study only lingers around money and not even with power. Thanks for an interesting reading.

What this is missing out is the fact that there are now digital currencies of nations as well, for example petro which is still digital currency but at the same time based on a nations resources so it can always be combined.

Bitcoin was never the first digital currency, it was only the first one that seen this much adoption, there was e-money type of deals before that never got too big because they never had blockchain behind it, what made bitcoin original and unique was the blockchain, otherwise digital currency has been as old as internet itself, even data was seen as money at one point and exchanged for fiat currency to be used. Hence there are other smaller details that should be invested some research into before this theory could be 100% done with.

Hi all,

Modern biology has been getting close to solving the mystery of money ever since Dawkins attempted a definition in 'The selfish gene'. By clarifying some basic conceptual issues, this research article defines Bitcoin as the first form of digital money. Fiat 'money' and any coin that prioritises exchange over value is defined as credit. This sorts out the confusion with ideas like 'credit-money or 'money is debt' or 'money comes from a commodity'... In this way, the article solves the recent debate between David Graeber and the Austrian School. I hope it is useful.

https://www.academia.edu/40138316/Money_is_a_token_of_cooperation_The_biology_of_indirect_exchanges