Topic: Is Bitcoin money? An analysis from the Austrian school of economic thought - page 2. (Read 2943 times)
July 12, 2014, 07:24:00 PM
Most people here are austrians and regard bitcoin as money. The problem with the regression theorem has been discussed in depth. It is either wrong, or bitcoin is a follow up to fiat money.
July 12, 2014, 09:04:37 AM
So we need someone to tell us something is money, when we use it to buy or sell something, without us having to have their approval?
If I am the owner of a coffee shop, and a plumber came to fix my shops plumbing, and he accept payment in coffee vouchers, the voucher become money.
Anything with value, can be used as money. {It's been used in trade for centuries} We do not need anyone to tell us Bitcoins is money, we know it's money, because we use it in trade as payment. {So it has value}
If I am the owner of a coffee shop, and a plumber came to fix my shops plumbing, and he accept payment in coffee vouchers, the voucher become money.
Anything with value, can be used as money. {It's been used in trade for centuries} We do not need anyone to tell us Bitcoins is money, we know it's money, because we use it in trade as payment. {So it has value}
July 12, 2014, 07:48:21 AM
Money is an acceptable form of payment. Since some merchants already accept it, it can be classified as money for some.
July 12, 2014, 07:05:16 AM
From an Austrian perspective, Bitcoin is not money, however, an argument will be made that Bitcoin is an imperfect form of memory, one which fits somewhere in between commodity money and fiat money, a synthetic commodity money
I think that they should adapt their monetary theories because we lives in the changing world so even it's not sure if US dollar will stay as main world currency.
Many rules changed in a last a few years because of World financial crisis, so now we have more centralized banking system, specially in eU.
Thank you for sharing this info but I guess time will show if bitcoin will become mainstream or not.
I think that they should adapt their monetary theories because we lives in the changing world so even it's not sure if US dollar will stay as main world currency.
Many rules changed in a last a few years because of World financial crisis, so now we have more centralized banking system, specially in eU.
Thank you for sharing this info but I guess time will show if bitcoin will become mainstream or not.
July 12, 2014, 04:15:48 AM
Anything of value can be used as money from Austrian school.
Bitcoin just make it simple as information travel fast and reach just about any city in the world.
Bitcoin just make it simple as information travel fast and reach just about any city in the world.
July 12, 2014, 03:27:30 AM
I have asked the same question to myself too: is bitcoin really used as a money or just another kind of investment or property that is highly volatile in value? I should save this file for reading to see what other people's thoughts are. Anyway, thanks for sharing this analysis 
July 12, 2014, 12:34:50 AM
Nice...Is there a text version, not .pdf?
Cannot find any text link.Sorry about that..
OK, thank you..I will look at the .pdf.... Great topic.
July 12, 2014, 12:28:58 AM
Nice...Is there a text version, not .pdf?
Cannot find any text link.Sorry about that..
July 12, 2014, 12:24:18 AM
Nice...Is there a text version, not .pdf?
July 12, 2014, 12:18:12 AM
Is Bitcoin money?
An analysis from the Austrian school of economic thought
http://skemman.is/en/stream/get/1946/18234/42843/1/MS_%C3%8Dsak_Andri_%C3%93lafsson.pdf
Abstract
This thesis aims to explore whether digital crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin can be considered money from the perspective of the Austrian school of economics. It begins by describing the functions and design of the Bitcoin system in detail. Other innovations that either build on or improve Bitcoin will be explained as well. The functions of money are then defined from the origins of money, providing a categorical approach toward a comparison between Bitcoin and incumbent money. The risks and complications of Bitcoin will be discussed in this thesis with an emphasis on the role of policymakers. One of the main reasons why Bitcoin has yet to be regarded as money in a traditional narrow sense is the barrier generated by network effects, in particular, the presence of excess inertia. Other risks and complications that are present within the context of this thesis will also be discussed.
A significant part of the criticism of Bitcoin as a medium of exchange that comes from the Austrian school arises because Bitcoin does not seem to follow the regression theorem Mises put forth to explain the emergence of money. An attempt will be made to reform the regression theorem so it accounts for digital innovations such as Bitcoin, if proven unsuccessful, another perspective is offered in which Bitcoin does not violate the theorem. When the complication of the regression theorem is solved, it is possible to address whether Bitcoin is money or just a secondary medium of exchange. From an Austrian perspective, Bitcoin is not money, however, an argument will be made that Bitcoin is an imperfect form of memory, one which fits somewhere in between commodity money and fiat money, a synthetic commodity money. The possibility of Bitcoin substitutes to incite an expansion of the money supply will also be analysed from an Austrian perspective.
An analysis from the Austrian school of economic thought
http://skemman.is/en/stream/get/1946/18234/42843/1/MS_%C3%8Dsak_Andri_%C3%93lafsson.pdf
Abstract
This thesis aims to explore whether digital crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin can be considered money from the perspective of the Austrian school of economics. It begins by describing the functions and design of the Bitcoin system in detail. Other innovations that either build on or improve Bitcoin will be explained as well. The functions of money are then defined from the origins of money, providing a categorical approach toward a comparison between Bitcoin and incumbent money. The risks and complications of Bitcoin will be discussed in this thesis with an emphasis on the role of policymakers. One of the main reasons why Bitcoin has yet to be regarded as money in a traditional narrow sense is the barrier generated by network effects, in particular, the presence of excess inertia. Other risks and complications that are present within the context of this thesis will also be discussed.
A significant part of the criticism of Bitcoin as a medium of exchange that comes from the Austrian school arises because Bitcoin does not seem to follow the regression theorem Mises put forth to explain the emergence of money. An attempt will be made to reform the regression theorem so it accounts for digital innovations such as Bitcoin, if proven unsuccessful, another perspective is offered in which Bitcoin does not violate the theorem. When the complication of the regression theorem is solved, it is possible to address whether Bitcoin is money or just a secondary medium of exchange. From an Austrian perspective, Bitcoin is not money, however, an argument will be made that Bitcoin is an imperfect form of memory, one which fits somewhere in between commodity money and fiat money, a synthetic commodity money. The possibility of Bitcoin substitutes to incite an expansion of the money supply will also be analysed from an Austrian perspective.
Jump to: