Topic: I disagree that Bitcoin is money, currency. - page 3. (Read 7315 times)

Well, as you say yourself, its definition depends on your point of view.

You're free to see, define and treat it as you like, a currency, a resource, an asset, whatever,
but anyone else is also free to have another point of view, another definition, treating it differently than you do.

Yes, it has the property of money, but only if you agree that the gold and silver also has the property of money.

I never stated that it is not money, au contraire, I stated originally that it can be used as money, but there are numerous limitations when doing so.

Like in the quantum physics, the light has the property of a wave and a particle, depending on the point of view.

Same with Bitcoin, it has the property of money and resource, depending on the point of view. So I am advocating to stop treating it as a currency, and give it a proper definition, that acknowledges its property as a resource too.

Bitcoin has properties of money/a currency.
Bitcoin therefore can be and is used as money/a currency.
Yet you (and it seems you alone) claim that it's not money/a currency.

What's your definition of money/a currency?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_investigation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junger_v._Daley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States

Not 99%, it more like 100% of the people will disagree with me. 

I think earlier I've stated what I believe the reasons for that, IMHO, is because the original Bitcoin paper as well as the follow-up publications made by bitcoin.org and others had repeated the same erroneous view ad nauseam  and managed to entrench it into the people's mind. And now people propagate the same view without giving it a proper thought WRT the negative implications such definition brings to Bitcoin.

I am looking for a way out of this vicious circle - in my opinion, Bitcoin will benefit greatly from being correctly defined, will gain the ability to counter the straw-man arguments (i.e. the terrorist use) as well as integrate into the current legal and financial framework instead of constantly antagonise it.

I am trying to compile a list with the pros and cons the current definition brings to Bitcoin, so I can compare it with the list of pros and cons of the new definition that could bring to Bitcoin.

Hence my post with that regard, I am looking for critique of my view from the few who read and participate in this forum section, so I can stress test my motion, before I present it to the broader Bitcoin user base.

I must add, there is nothing personal that I can gain from this, it is a pure intellectual exercise, the only beneficiary is the Bitcoin.

So why are you so confident that you know the "true nature" of Bitcoin (that it is a "resource") when 99% of people here disagree with you?

 I see and know the difference, but the US goverment has always a wildcard up their sleeve - terrorism. They pronounce everyone who is using it a terrorist, and its over, see how many people will use it then... Just as someone who downloads torrents can go to prison, they can do the same with btc people. You are getting me worng, I like the idea of bitcoin. I have only seen too much shit done by us goverment.

@ DeathAndTaxes

I am not proposing to merely rename Bitcoin, that would be pointless, my proposition is to evaluate and re-define Bitcoin, also re-name it to match its more accurate definition.

@  SgtSpike

The foundation of my proposal is that Bitcoin is not currency or money. Yes, incidentally it can be used as such, but its properties are more similar to the natural resources, and if its definition correctly reflects that, I believe Bitcoin will benefit from it greatly.

You must have misinterpreted my motion - I am not suggesting to disguise Bitcoin, on contrary, I am suggesting to highlight its true nature, instead of what is currently (erroneously IMHO) implied.

Also, by default (of my motion), presenting untruth equals deception, hence presenting Bitcoin as currency instead of resource (albeit not natural, but artificial) is a deception.

The logical way is to arrive at an accurate definition and appropriate name for Bitcoin.

As for taking on any government and changing their economic rules and laws, I can only wish you luck.

@ vdragon
@ Matthew N. Wright

Can you not see the fundamental difference between Bitcoin and e-gold?

Let me rephrase this, can you point to the similarities between Bitcoin and e-gold that could be used to construct the demise of Bitcoin the way it was applied with e-gold?

 Anyone remember e-gold and what happend to them? Bitcoin is only more volatile, it might survive goverment attacks, time will tell

Disagree.

The idea that if it was just named different everything will work and if it isn't everything will fail is kinda simplistic thinking don't you think?

If Bitcoin "acts" as a currency regardless if you call it a "pig simulator" governments & financial institutions are going to move to regulate it like a currency.  I mean these entities aren't run by nine year olds who will just not realize that "Bitcoin the non-currency" has all the properties and is being used as a defacto currency.  The name of something isn't really relevant under the law.  I mean if drug dealers started calling themselves "herbal supplement specialists" it wouldn't suddenly exploit this massive loophole under the law and make their activities legal.  

I would point out even if beneficial you can't force a name change.  Call it something else if you want, but as long as a significant portion of community calls it Bitcoin well it would be like saying gold bullion shouldn't be called gold bullion it should be called "solid form of element AU poured into ingots".  Go ahead and try to convince the whole world to change but I doubt it will be effective.


Finally to the "common man" Bitcoin is already confusing trying to explain to someone that:

E-Gold tried that. Unfortunately, it's all semantics. Anonymous value trades of any kind will eventually have the same outcome in the face of big government no matter how you spin it.

1 & 2 - You propose disguising what Bitcoin is to change taxation and avoid financial regulations?  I propose using Bitcoin to expose how inefficient and over-regulated the current system is and CHANGE those taxation and financial regulations.

3 - There are no laws for or against Bitcoin usage yet.  People could get in trouble for using it, we just don't know.  Calling it something it isn't in hopes of avoiding trouble with the law seems asinine.

4 - Banks can use Bitcoin, there is no reason they cannot.

5 - Again, you're just attempting to disguise what Bitcoin is to paint it in a pretty light?  Terrorists will use Bitcoin regardless of what we call it - why deceive people by trying to hide what it can and will be used for?

Sure, it can be used as money (proven fact), similar to the way gold coins can and have been used as money in the past.

But it is not terribly practical to do so.

Especially, if having to fight with the common, government issued money (legal tender), I think Bitcoin will loose this battle.

What I believe Bitcoin community should do is to re-define Bitcoin, more precisely align it with the reality and give it a new name.

With all respect to Satoshi Nakamoto, I think he chose the name Bitcoin poorly. It implies that it is a coin, version of money, yet there are minor similarities between Bitcoin and the legal tender coins.

Instead, IMHO, he should have chosen a name that reflects the nature of the Bitcoin, much more similar to the precious metals and other resources, store of value and incidentally similar to currency, but definitely not the virtual electronic currency it is portrayed as now.

I've studied all bitcoin.org documents as well as what the Bitcoin Foundation has produced, yet I have only seen the same original motion being repeated endlessly, regrettably the Bitcoin community being left wheel-spinning to deal with the practical challenges.

Let me give few examples:

1. Dealing with the regional law and tax regimes - defining Bitcoin as asset instead of money will allow more efficient tax management.

2. Financial regulations - the status quo inevitably antagonises the current financial regulatory regimes, implying that there is a new kind of currency they cannot and will never be able to regulate - if defined as a resource, mined like any other finite resource, and sold and bought on the markets like any other resource (unregulated), the financial institutions may well accept it as something they can trade and not something that threatens their (in many cases self perceived) authority.

3. Common man on the street - the first though that comes when exposed to the idea of Bitcoin is "is it legal, will I get into trouble by using it?", instead one could simply relate to the current legal status of any precious metal, it is just a commodity (albeit of different, digital nature) that can be traded for any legal tender on the one of the many unregulated exchanges.

4. Bank - if the bank cannot use Bitcoins (not legal tender in any country), then they would not support it, they may as well make its use and adoption more difficult. But if it is just a legal commodity, then they would not see reason to oppose it or obstruct its adoption.

5. Terrorists - no one is objecting the terrorists using cash to fund their ventures, but suddenly, the anonymous use of the Bitcoin currency makes it an evil tool - removing the "currency" and "coin" from the definition of Bitcoin would allow for more objective view on the properties of Bitcoin, disassociation from the "evil" anonymous nature of the cash.

6. And so on...

MY QUESTIONS TO THE BROADER BITCOIN COMMUNITY:

Do you agree or disagree with me, please argue you point here - serious discussions only, please.

Do you think the time is right, it is realistic to get the majority of the Bitcoin community to come to a consensus with regards to more precisely defining and naming Bitcoin? If yes, what do you think will be the right process to follow - centralised, decentralised, combination of the two? If no, please argue you reasons here.