How could it be a currency before anyone used it at all (let alone not having widespread use throughout the market) as a currency?
By this definition no currency could ever be created.
All currency was something or was redemable for something. That something may have been later taken away, but log0s statement stands. A currency is a generally accepted medium of exchange. Implied is that a currency was first exchanged, rather than a currency first, then exchanged.
I agree, but the definition is a bit problematic for practical purposes, because when is something _generally_ accepted on the Internet? Would you say Paypal is generally accepted? Credit cards? (yes they are payment systems, but what about WoW gold, Facebook credits etc...) By that definition there will probably never be such a thing as an Internet currency - yet by common terms we have several. My point is that the definition of "generally accepted" is so vague and difficult to apply to the Internet that it doesn't really help as an argument and for most practical purposes, currencies are "created" (ie, nobody disagreed when you called the Euro a currency even before it existed in physical form). But anyway - Satoshi did not introduce an electronic currency but an "electronic cash system" so the argument does not even apply.
WoW gold is pretend currency used in a game. People value it for it's necessity in gameplay. This value, however, gives it much more potential than Bitcoin to become a currency, as it could be better argued than Bitcoin that it is a commodity. If you were to consider it a commodity, it's still not anywhere close to (and almost certainly never will be) as marketable as other commodities that have become money, and therefore is not going to become a real money itself anytime soon.
Facebook credits are merely a dollar substitute (1/10th of a dollar, to be exact). The numbers in the "facebook credit" ledger are representing dollars, not "facebook credits".
I say: Bitcoin is a currency, because it is generally accepted as a medium of exchange within the Bitcoin community. It was from the beginning, albeit the Bitcoin community was smaller then.
When Satoshi created Bitcoin, he asserted that it was a currency long before one was
ever traded for the first time. Someone else adopted it, probably under the false belief that it was a currency (because that's what Satoshi told them), before the first trade as well (there couldn't be a trade until a second person adopted it).
There is a time-based conflict. They believed it to be a currency before even the first trade ever, yet if something was never traded, it by definition cannot even be a commodity, let alone a currency. On top of that, if only two people are trading it, it is certainly only barter, otherwise all goods traded would be considered currency. Their assertions and beliefs contradicted reality. Yet why have the vast majority of Bitcoin adopters adopted Bitcoin? Because they believe it either already is a currency or might become one in the future. After all, this is what
http://bitcoin.org, Satoshi's whitepaper introducing Bitcoin (written and released before the first trade of any Bitcoins occurred), and most other Bitcoin users assert, and it is even implied in the name "Bit
coin". Without these false beliefs, Bitcoin would almost certainly have never had anywhere even remotely close to the adoption it has seen (which is still minuscule compared to real commodities and money). Bitcoin prices would most likely be a small fraction of a penny today, assuming people even saw any reason to metaphorically "trade" them at all, when considering the actually implementation of the system (vs. potential more marketable implementations).
Feel free to replace "metaphorical" with "fake" or similar and "non-metaphorical" with "real"...I somehow don't expect there to be many people preferring fake or pretend money over real money.
What is fake and what is real? Are the bits and bytes on the storage system of your bank which happen to correlate with your bank account's balance "real money"?
Again, the numbers in the bank's storage system are representing dollars. The numbers in the Bitcoin system are not representing anything.
People provide goods and services in exchange for that bits and bytes and that's the only thing that matters. Again, the distinction between "real" or "metaphorical" money becomes somewhat moot - some people provide goods and services for certain bits and bytes in the blockchain, so where's the problem?
You don't think it matters that people are willing to offer goods and services for Bitcoins under the false belief that it is or will become a money? This doesn't have the potential to create a Bitcoin bubble? Have Bitcoin prices been a reflection or reality or a reflection of false beliefs?
I think that as soon as a person that was offering goods for bitcoins understands that Bitcoin is not even a commodity, let alone a money, and that most other Bitcoin users falsely believe it is a money, their plans regarding their trade of Bitcoins are going to change. They may continue to accept them, because others that falsely believe it is or will become a money (and a few that know better) are willing to pay so much for them. But their expectations of Bitcoin's future will likely change, and they will adjust their actions and plans accordingly (cash out immediately or when prices are relatively high after selling non-money goods, or be prepared to sell when they see signs of a price crash, or whatever makes sense to them in their situation).
Prices will adjust to reflect reality as more people understand their beliefs were unfounded.
Bitcoin is a decentralized ledger with a set of rules for storing and modifying arbitrary numbers associated with cryptographic keys, is it not? When you look at the raw block and wallet data, do you see bitcoins anywhere? (I'm guessing you've never looked.) No.
Don't worry, I have been working with the Bitcoin code and raw transaction data for quite some time now and you are right, Bitcoin is just a kind of abstract concept - a name we give the balance of the ledger of some cryptographic keys. But you know what - people deal with such abstract concepts all the time.
This isn't about whether or not people can deal with abstract concepts. This is about people falsely believing a metaphor to be the reality rather than just a metaphor.
Your arguments are highly theoretical and have about the same merit as someone arguing that forests cannot exist because all there really ever is, is a collection of trees and it will take some time until people finally realize they have been wrong all the time when they thought of going for a walk in a forest.
The word "forest" is basically defined as a collection of trees (well, an area with a high density of trees). Trees are real, and areas of land with a high density of trees are also real. Comparing my argument to that suggests you do not understand my argument. My argument is actually similar to the claim that the actions of an organization (such as a government or a business) are metaphorical, as it is really the people that are considered a part of that organization that are taking those actions.
People created ledgers for the purpose of keeping accounts of a good (such as ounces of gold or dollars). The numbers in electronic banking ledgers do this. The numbers in bitcoin do not represent any good.
Of course they do - whenever I buy something with Bitcoins, the corresponding entry in the Bitcoin ledger is a representation of the value of that good or service at that point in time - what else would it be?
Entries in your bank's ledger do not represent the value of a good you bought with your dollars. They represent the dollars deposited and withdrawn from your account.
).
In other words, I own very little share in bitcoin but regularly accumulating more!
