What it does is act like money. (In what way does an accounting program act like money?)
In the way that people
act in a manner that implies that, for them, there is no practical difference between the output of the accounting program and the physical trade of money. Money is a social method of accounting, just a special one.
It's a form of intellectual property,.. (It's as intellectual as an inch, or a kilometer.)
The blockchain could be considered the unit of measure, as that isn't owned by anyone in particular. But the ownership of a particular sum of bitcoins by a particular collection of addresses at a particular point in time; is, indeed, a form of intellectual property. In the manner that it's is an abstract concept that we (the society known as the bitcoin community) assign a value to, and also agree upon a particular possession of.
It's not the best way to think of Bitcoin, I admit, but I was playing off of the post that I was responding to.
...but the paper object isn't the property. (You're making my argument, creighto.)
I am, in a manner of speaking. I have always agreed with you that bitcoins are not money, but money and currency are not quite the same thing. My disagreement with you is that I can't agree that bitcoins are a commodity, since they have no known alternative use in order to grant them value outside of the context of a medium of trade. If they did, then they would be money in the
literal sense. As such, bitcoins are a new/unique form of currency unit. Nothing more, nothing less. To even call them a commodity is granting them more attributes than they posses.
Neither bitcoins nor gold needs the protection services of governments nor courts to perform their primary functions ... (Yes.) ... as a trade medium. (No. How is a number a "trade medium"?)
All currency, fiat or otherwise, are simply numbers at their core. Gold is money, but is only a currency in a form that can be considered a unit by the market, such as the troy ounce or the gram. An undefined lump of gold isn't a currency, but it is still money.
All currencies are a unit of measurement, and all units of measurement are numbers. The conversions of one currency into another, at a particular moment in time, is akin to the conversion of American Standard units into Metric.
The main page refers to Bitcoin avoiding the neccessity of a 'trusted third party'. That third party is any institution that both parties trust to enforce the terms of the agreement (i.e. contract) upon the other should the deal turn sour. This can be courts or governments, but can also be private institutions such as banking, Paypal, or whatever. Those private institutions may (or may not) be limited in what kind of punishment that they can dish out to a bad player, but usually they also have the implicit backing of the courts via contract law anyway. However, there is an overhead for such institutions; both in actual funds and in surrendered liberty/information. (Yes. But Bitcoin doesn't work like that. Bitcoin only keeps the records straight. The clients use whatever outside agents they wish.)
I agree, and it is in that manner that bitcoins are
similar to gold or silver coins used in trade. I don't have the time to write an article on the subject. Again, please read
Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? before continuing with this debate. I know that you don't realize it, but you suffer from misinformation that you can easily correct. That book takes the reader back to the beginning of the formation of natural commerce, and explains why and how money developed. You really cannot understand money until you start at the beginning.
I'm giving these statements a very shallow treatment, but so far I see no compelling reason why we should not put an imaginary wall between what is Bitcoin the program, and what is Bitcoin the community, the traders, and the economy.
If we make this distinction, we will see that there is no need for Bitcoin to ever go over its wall, to meddle in the "proper" use of Bitcoins, to decide how much a Bitcoin may be "worth", or to enforce private contracts.
And I think that is a good thing.
You have the right to imagine a separation of program and the community, and I can see the logic. However, you have neither the authority nor the ability to impose your rationale upon others. This is why you will consistantly fail in your goal of defining bitcoins in any way that appears inconsistant to others, regardless of the logic or legal motivation of such a goal.
Basicly, you are 'pissing up a rope' in your attempts to get forum members to call bitcoins a form of commodity. They will call it as they see it; be that a currency, or even money.