Topic: Is Bitcoin a Currency or Commodity? (Read 2686 times)
I'm always amazed by people who cannot accept the fact that all currencies are commodities, while people are buying and selling currencies all the time.
To everyone who understands the historical basis for my question: it is also the answer, as you know.
Is light a particle or a wave?
Is light a particle or a wave?
I try to avoid quoting myself but
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-is-unique-49460
I've been sitting on this for a while because I haven't wanted to get caught up in any of the currency versus commodity debates going on but I can hold my metaphorical tongue no longer.
Bitcoin shares many of the traits displayed by money, currencies, commodities, stock, credits, and other exchangeable items that economic infrastructures are built around, however, it transcends them.
The synergy Satoshi created by utilizing a hash based proof-of-work system verified by a peer-to-peer network is not adequately described by any of the previous terms in their current incarnations. Consequently, new rules, laws, business etiquette, security measures, etc. will all have to be built from the ground up, free from the old, cumbersome restrictions and antiquated mentalities lingering in this brave, new world.
This manifestation of an intangible, archtypal ideal is giving us glimpses through doors that even the least cynical of us have always believed to be locked. Even if Bitcoin does die, it has opened my eyes to wondrous possibilities that will live at least as long as I do.
And that, my friends, is how Bitcoin won my admiration and continues to enthrall me to this day.
Bitcoin shares many of the traits displayed by money, currencies, commodities, stock, credits, and other exchangeable items that economic infrastructures are built around, however, it transcends them.
The synergy Satoshi created by utilizing a hash based proof-of-work system verified by a peer-to-peer network is not adequately described by any of the previous terms in their current incarnations. Consequently, new rules, laws, business etiquette, security measures, etc. will all have to be built from the ground up, free from the old, cumbersome restrictions and antiquated mentalities lingering in this brave, new world.
This manifestation of an intangible, archtypal ideal is giving us glimpses through doors that even the least cynical of us have always believed to be locked. Even if Bitcoin does die, it has opened my eyes to wondrous possibilities that will live at least as long as I do.
And that, my friends, is how Bitcoin won my admiration and continues to enthrall me to this day.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-is-unique-49460
And I re-iterate, rather than trying to stick a label on it, let it define its own label.
and i lol too
Bitcoin is not a sentient being with its own decision powers to name itself. Bitcoin is a tool used by people, so its the people using bitcoin that get to define it, I think that is what this thread is doing. So us, the community of bitcoin are defining it and by so many people making at least 6 threads on the same topic of defining it, then I think us, the bitcoin community do give a flying monkey's shyte. But at least a few smart people truly understand the difference of a commodity, money, currency, asset to distinguish what bitcoin is. both in form and function.
form = asset
function = currency
It's either a Commency or a Currodity, take your pick.
I lol'd.
Bitcoin doesn't give a flying monkey's shyte what you (or me, or anyone) define it as. It will still BE (operating as it does, and will) regardless of what we define it as.
Perhaps people should stop trying to stick a label/definition on it? And maybe let it label itself as it defines itself, and then people will understand what it IS.
If what I say is a bit.. meh.. then run this experiment.
For yourself:
Define money. Define commodity.
Now try your hardest to use bitcoin (or imaginary bitcoin) in both definitions.
And I bet that others would easily add more definitions. Perhaps to some its considered primarily a mathmatical delight and not seen as either, or from a programmer a new source code to build and extrapolate from.
Though saying all this, my own personal opinion is both and more.
And I re-iterate, rather than trying to stick a label on it, let it define its own label.
Bitcoin doesn't give a flying monkey's shyte what you (or me, or anyone) define it as. It will still BE (operating as it does, and will) regardless of what we define it as.
Perhaps people should stop trying to stick a label/definition on it? And maybe let it label itself as it defines itself, and then people will understand what it IS.
If what I say is a bit.. meh.. then run this experiment.
For yourself:
Define money. Define commodity.
Now try your hardest to use bitcoin (or imaginary bitcoin) in both definitions.
And I bet that others would easily add more definitions. Perhaps to some its considered primarily a mathmatical delight and not seen as either, or from a programmer a new source code to build and extrapolate from.
Though saying all this, my own personal opinion is both and more.
And I re-iterate, rather than trying to stick a label on it, let it define its own label.
Quote
In economics, a commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs. Economic commodities comprise goods and services.
Quote
A currency (from Middle English curraunt, meaning in circulation) in the most specific use of the word refers to money in any form when in actual use or circulation, as a medium of exchange, especially circulating paper money.
Unless Bitcoin's service of "being a currency" counts toward being a commodity, I think it's safe to say that it is, indeed, a currency. I don't think "wearing out computers" counts as a service people want.
I think many people want it to be a commodity purely because commodities can offer cheaper tax in some countries so they want everyone to agree that it is a commodity. but there is no physical or realistic reason why it is anything like a commodity. Its qualities are that of an asset (store of value owned in whole by the holder), its uses are that of a currency (anything used as a means of exchange).
It is not a share(% of a business), it is not money(Fiat), it is not a commodity(raw material). I see some have understood what a commodity is aldur1, franky1, EndtheFed, BTCLuke. But there is still a few people that for unknown reasons refuse to believe that bitcoin is not a commodity.
It is not a share(% of a business), it is not money(Fiat), it is not a commodity(raw material). I see some have understood what a commodity is aldur1, franky1, EndtheFed, BTCLuke. But there is still a few people that for unknown reasons refuse to believe that bitcoin is not a commodity.
It cold be both or it could be neither.
Bitcoin is Bitcoin. It has properties of a commodity, currency and a payment processor.
+1. It's often compared to gold, fiat currencies like the USD, and PayPal. Classifying it as only one of those is improper.
A currency
Bitcoin is a fiat currency. In Hashrate We Trust.
I have seen this question pop up a lot lately and thought it would be interesting to run a poll to see what the public opinion is. I have stated publicly in my interview with Cliff Kule at http://www.cliffkule.com/2013/04/kule-interview-bitcoin-adam-harding.htm that I believe it is not a currency but a commodity with money like properties (similar to gold).
Please give your answers and explain your reasoning.
Please give your answers and explain your reasoning.
To my knowledge bitcoin is defined as a commodity by most organizations pretty much except Paypal (it's against their TOS to sell alt currencies) and some banks.
you guys still dont get it.
what comparisons in real life.... actual real life function does bitcoin have anything to do with gold.
and please dont say because someone gave the name of the concept of creating coins "mining"
because satoshi could have called it vectoring (due to the eliptic curve) and then people will start thinking.. hmm drawings.. hmm art.. oh it must be an asset..
it is NOT a commodity.
it will not appear next to wheat, cattle or oil on the commodity columns of trading platforms. so get that out of your head. it may however appear in the forex columns and treated as a legit currency.
however for tax purposes because of the actual ownership and store of value is much like antique/collectable art/coins it should be treated like an asset for tax purposes.
atleast try understanding what a commodity is and realise you cant change the laws of physics, laws of tax, laws of intellect purely with enough votes on a bitcoin forum.
P.S if you have never heard of the laws of intellect, here goes:
3 people with an IQ of 100 do not together become twice as smart as someone with a 150 IQ
what comparisons in real life.... actual real life function does bitcoin have anything to do with gold.
and please dont say because someone gave the name of the concept of creating coins "mining"
because satoshi could have called it vectoring (due to the eliptic curve) and then people will start thinking.. hmm drawings.. hmm art.. oh it must be an asset..
it is NOT a commodity.
it will not appear next to wheat, cattle or oil on the commodity columns of trading platforms. so get that out of your head. it may however appear in the forex columns and treated as a legit currency.
however for tax purposes because of the actual ownership and store of value is much like antique/collectable art/coins it should be treated like an asset for tax purposes.
atleast try understanding what a commodity is and realise you cant change the laws of physics, laws of tax, laws of intellect purely with enough votes on a bitcoin forum.
P.S if you have never heard of the laws of intellect, here goes:
3 people with an IQ of 100 do not together become twice as smart as someone with a 150 IQ
its an energy sink
Glad to see "Commodity" is leading 
No, I don't think it's a curmmodity, it's more like a commurency.
coining the term curmmodity(tm)
You forgot a "both" option. What if you replaced bitcoin with gold in the question, as in has gold been a currency or commodity?
I got an idea: let's get into an argument over semantics 
Arguments over semantics are very important.
It's important to define what we mean with words exactly.
Jump to: