from BTC point of view...
it totally doesn't matter what any country consider BTC to be...only thing that matters is what real people consider it to be...and if they decide to use it as a means of payment for goods who's gonna stop them?
countries can disagree, can start a dispute, but that's all they can do about it...it will always totally depend on REAL people and their trust...and that's the REAL value of BTC
never had and never gonna sell any of my BTCs for FIAT
Topic: How long will it take for people to realize Bitcoin isn't just a currency? (Read 1716 times)
January 21, 2014, 01:57:58 AM
January 20, 2014, 07:43:16 PM
Bitcoin is too volatile to be considered a currency right now by governments. It acts more like a commodity, don't you think?
By governments yes but who cares if people use it as such anyway?
January 20, 2014, 07:11:18 PM
Bitcoin is too volatile to be considered a currency right now by governments. It acts more like a commodity, don't you think?
January 20, 2014, 07:04:53 PM
I always try to engage people in discussions on non-Bitcoin forums, and there is just a huge amount of skepticism. But I would say this is no longer an uphill battle as far as public perception goes. The more it makes into the mainstream news, the more willing are people willing to listen, or even better, ask questions.
January 20, 2014, 07:00:20 PM
Quote
In fact, it's a terrible currency. Bitcoin as a currency can't be used for micropayments, but Bitcoin derivative currencies can. Bitcoin cannot be inflated for state run money supplies, but Bitcoin derivatives can. Bitcoin cannot be used for trading legacy financial instruments, but Bitcoin derivatives can. Bitcoin cannot be backed by tangibles, but Bitcoin derivatives can. Bitcoin doesn't do any of the things traditional financial institutions want, but Bitcoin derivatives can do them better than what they currently have. Think of the Blockchain as the building blocks of a Minecraft style new World of Finance.
What if I told you money is worthless? I'm talking about the US dollar, the Euro, the Yen. We just choose to believe it has value, just like Bitcoin. It is an illusion. Almost everyone knows this at some level, but we just choose to accept it. If this illusion were to break down, so does our society, because it is based on this illusion. Point is -and I'm sure someone has said already- it is our belief that gives money, including Bitcoin, its value. And I do hope you know that most recognized currencies in the world are not back by anything tangible.
Value is very subjective. For something to be valuable it needs 2 things: Utility + Scarcity. Money as we know it today is an illusion, yes, but a valuable illusion because it is useful as a medium of exchange AND scarce (well, kind of...).
Anything used by 2 people as a medium of exchange IS money for those people. If I purchase something with cigarettes then cigarette IS money.
I just purchased something with bitcoin but apparently China and Finland governments said I can't because bitcoin is not money because it is volatile. Oh wait..
January 20, 2014, 06:29:49 PM
Quote
In fact, it's a terrible currency. Bitcoin as a currency can't be used for micropayments, but Bitcoin derivative currencies can. Bitcoin cannot be inflated for state run money supplies, but Bitcoin derivatives can. Bitcoin cannot be used for trading legacy financial instruments, but Bitcoin derivatives can. Bitcoin cannot be backed by tangibles, but Bitcoin derivatives can. Bitcoin doesn't do any of the things traditional financial institutions want, but Bitcoin derivatives can do them better than what they currently have. Think of the Blockchain as the building blocks of a Minecraft style new World of Finance.
What if I told you money is worthless? I'm talking about the US dollar, the Euro, the Yen. We just choose to believe it has value, just like Bitcoin. It is an illusion. Almost everyone knows this at some level, but we just choose to accept it. If this illusion were to break down, so does our society, because it is based on this illusion. Point is -and I'm sure someone has said already- it is our belief that gives money, including Bitcoin, its value. And I do hope you know that most recognized currencies in the world are not back by anything tangible.
January 20, 2014, 06:09:31 PM
Quote
In fact, it's a terrible currency. Bitcoin as a currency can't be used for micropayments, but Bitcoin derivative currencies can. Bitcoin cannot be inflated for state run money supplies, but Bitcoin derivatives can. Bitcoin cannot be used for trading legacy financial instruments, but Bitcoin derivatives can. Bitcoin cannot be backed by tangibles, but Bitcoin derivatives can. Bitcoin doesn't do any of the things traditional financial institutions want, but Bitcoin derivatives can do them better than what they currently have. Think of the Blockchain as the building blocks of a Minecraft style new World of Finance.
What if I told you money is worthless? I'm talking about the US dollar, the Euro, the Yen. We just choose to believe it has value, just like Bitcoin. It is an illusion. Almost everyone knows this at some level, but we just choose to accept it. If this illusion were to break down, so does our society, because it is based on this illusion. Point is -and I'm sure someone has said already- it is our belief that gives money, including Bitcoin, its value. And I do hope you know that most recognized currencies in the world are not back by anything tangible.
January 20, 2014, 06:09:05 PM
Quote
First part of your definition is "a system". I'm pretty sure that bitcoin does not fail that part of the definition.
The next part of your definition is "of money". There is a lot of debate about whether bitcoin passes that test because people seem to have a difficult time agreeing on a definition of the word "money". In the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government a federal judge has declared that bitcoin is a Money. Perhaps he is mistaken, perhaps not. This is why this topic is being discussed again for the billionth time and why this discussion won't resolve anything any more than any of the other discussions. Until there is a definition of "money" that everyone can agree with, people won't be able to agree on whether or not Bitcoin is Money.
The next part of your definition is "in general use". I think we can all agree on the fact that bitcoin is "in use", so now we have to agree on a definition of "in general use". Good luck with that one.
And the final part of your definition is "in a particual country". That would seem to indicate that it doesn't have to be a "money in general use" throughout the entire globe. If even one country decides that it is a "money", and it is in "general use" in that one country, then it is a "currency".
The next part of your definition is "of money". There is a lot of debate about whether bitcoin passes that test because people seem to have a difficult time agreeing on a definition of the word "money". In the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government a federal judge has declared that bitcoin is a Money. Perhaps he is mistaken, perhaps not. This is why this topic is being discussed again for the billionth time and why this discussion won't resolve anything any more than any of the other discussions. Until there is a definition of "money" that everyone can agree with, people won't be able to agree on whether or not Bitcoin is Money.
The next part of your definition is "in general use". I think we can all agree on the fact that bitcoin is "in use", so now we have to agree on a definition of "in general use". Good luck with that one.
And the final part of your definition is "in a particual country". That would seem to indicate that it doesn't have to be a "money in general use" throughout the entire globe. If even one country decides that it is a "money", and it is in "general use" in that one country, then it is a "currency".
What up with your unhealthy desire to call Bitcoin a currency?
Do you realize that there are hundreds of economic theories on how currencies work.
There are old-school economic predictions, concepts and market models - all relying on the that definition.
Fundamental quality of currency is that it is issued by single authority (country).
Bitcoin is not centrally issued - why would you want to stick together with a bunch of regular currencies?
If anything, there should be a new definition.
Let's call it Dannyrency - it will be like a regular currency just not centrally issued.
January 20, 2014, 05:55:10 PM
Additionally, it is closer to the definition of currency compared to Bitcoin,
since it is issued by central authority - IMF.
since it is issued by central authority - IMF.
I didn't see anything in the definition that you posted that indicated that something has to be "issued by" a central authority to be considered a "currency".
January 20, 2014, 05:52:13 PM
Quote
Check out SDR. It is also a currency not issued by a country.
XRD is traded as currency. However, it is truly not a currency. Additionally, it is closer to the definition of currency compared to Bitcoin,
since it is issued by central authority - IMF.
In either case, it is rather the exception an not a rule.
January 20, 2014, 05:45:27 PM
Quote
How long will it take for people to realize Bitcoin isn't just a currency?
There, I fixed it for you.cur·ren·cy
ˈkərənsē,ˈkə-rənsē/
noun
1. a system of money in general use in a particular country.
2. ..
3. ..
Bitcoin fails at the very first part of definition of currency. Therefore it is not.
First part of your definition is "a system". I'm pretty sure that bitcoin does not fail that part of the definition.
The next part of your definition is "of money". There is a lot of debate about whether bitcoin passes that test because people seem to have a difficult time agreeing on a definition of the word "money". In the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government a federal judge has declared that bitcoin is a Money. Perhaps he is mistaken, perhaps not. This is why this topic is being discussed again for the billionth time and why this discussion won't resolve anything any more than any of the other discussions. Until there is a definition of "money" that everyone can agree with, people won't be able to agree on whether or not Bitcoin is Money.
The next part of your definition is "in general use". I think we can all agree on the fact that bitcoin is "in use", so now we have to agree on a definition of "in general use". Good luck with that one.
And the final part of your definition is "in a particual country". That would seem to indicate that it doesn't have to be a "money in general use" throughout the entire globe. If even one country decides that it is a "money", and it is in "general use" in that one country, then it is a "currency".
January 20, 2014, 05:44:27 PM
(misread, ignore)
January 20, 2014, 05:40:52 PM
If your point is "Bitcoin should be recognised as a technology platform more than just as a currency" then I agree.
Media is still using pictures of casascius coins and the like... I think we have a long way to go.
That said, it is not the user who needs to realise this. It's the technologists.
Media is still using pictures of casascius coins and the like... I think we have a long way to go.
That said, it is not the user who needs to realise this. It's the technologists.
January 20, 2014, 05:40:21 PM
Quote
How long will it take for people to realize Bitcoin isn't just a currency?
There, I fixed it for you.cur·ren·cy
ˈkərənsē,ˈkə-rənsē/
noun
1. a system of money in general use in a particular country.
2. ..
3. ..
Bitcoin fails at the very first part of definition of currency. Therefore it is not.
Therefore, this whole thread is moot because nobody cared to check
the meaning of general term which is being discussed...
Also, this will help: Money vs Currency
January 20, 2014, 05:34:36 PM
@cbeast
Judging by this thread, it looks like its going to take a while for people to realize the true potential of bitcoin.
Judging by this thread, it looks like its going to take a while for people to realize the true potential of bitcoin.
January 20, 2014, 05:26:12 PM
Quote
How long will it take for people to realize Bitcoin isn't just a currency?
There, I fixed it for you.cur·ren·cy
ˈkərənsē,ˈkə-rənsē/
noun
1. a system of money in general use in a particular country.
2. ..
3. ..
Bitcoin fails at the very first part of definition of currency. Therefore it is not.
Therefore, this whole thread is moot because nobody cared to check
the meaning of general term which is being discussed...
Also, this will help: Money vs Currency
January 20, 2014, 04:23:19 PM
In fact, it's a terrible currency. Bitcoin as a currency can't be used for micropayments, but Bitcoin derivative currencies can. Bitcoin cannot be inflated for state run money supplies, but Bitcoin derivatives can. Bitcoin cannot be used for trading legacy financial instruments, but Bitcoin derivatives can. Bitcoin cannot be backed by tangibles, but Bitcoin derivatives can. Bitcoin doesn't do any of the things traditional financial institutions want, but Bitcoin derivatives can do them better than what they currently have. Think of the Blockchain as the building blocks of a Minecraft style new World of Finance.
When you say Bitcoin derivatives, are you talking about altcoins? January 20, 2014, 04:01:32 PM
In fact, it's a terrible currency. Bitcoin as a currency can't be used for micropayments, but Bitcoin derivative currencies can. Bitcoin cannot be inflated for state run money supplies, but Bitcoin derivatives can. Bitcoin cannot be used for trading legacy financial instruments, but Bitcoin derivatives can. Bitcoin cannot be backed by tangibles, but Bitcoin derivatives can. Bitcoin doesn't do any of the things traditional financial institutions want, but Bitcoin derivatives can do them better than what they currently have. Think of the Blockchain as the building blocks of a Minecraft style new World of Finance.
When you say Bitcoin derivatives, are you talking about altcoins? January 20, 2014, 03:52:34 PM
Anything used as a medium of exchange and which is in wide circulation is a currency.
Your argument is thus invalid.
That's a textbook definition, not a legal one. Are you disagreeing with China and Finland?Your argument is thus invalid.
Whichever legal bracket China places BTC into right now it will still be widely used as a medium of exchange in time in China. They are trying to put a dampener on volatility and over-appreciation by putting some clamps around the edges. That doesn't mean they will not allow it to be utilised in purchase transactions. You are confusing politics and social engineering with genuine intent.
January 20, 2014, 03:38:58 PM
Are you disagreeing with China and Finland?
Yes.
The thing about legal definitions is that different jurisdictions will use different definitions.
The fact that China says bitcoin is a "virtual commodity, and not a currency" doesn't change the nature of bitcoin anymore than U.S. saying that waterboarding is an "enhanced interrogation technique, and not torture" changes the nature of waterboarding.
Jump to: