Topic: Not a currency, not a commodity, but an accounting system - page 2. (Read 5371 times)

You probably missed my explaintion earlier in this thread.  My argument against bitcoins being a commodity is rooted in the idea that commodities are objects with alternative uses, but bitcoins are nothing more than entries into a 64 bit variable on a transaction.  There does not exist an object, not even a digital one, that can be referred to and honestly state "that's a bitcoin" or "that's a half bitcoin".  There are no cryptographic tokens used that represent bitcoins in any fashion, unlike earlier attempts to create a cryptographic currency online.

Thus, if they don't exist outside of an abstract concept in our human minds, then they can't possibly have an alternative use.  Now the bitcoin network could have alternative uses, such as a timeservice for public notary online, or as a name registry as in the case with namecoin, or even a shared entrophy source for cryptographic communications; but those alternative uses are alternatives for the service of the network, not of the unit of value that we refer to as a 'bitcoin'.

That's a pointless comment, I won't bother reacting to it.

Stating "not a currency, not a commodity, but an accounting system" is a bit like stating "not a Ding Dong, not a Ho-Ho, but a bakery".  There are really two separate questions with two separate answers implied in the title of this thread - not a choice between three distinct definitions.

1) Is the bitcoin system an accounting system?  In accounting parlance, no.


This.  The bitcoin system most closely resembles a ledger system from an accounting perspective.  While a layman might say ledger system=accounting system, telling an accountant that the bitcoin network is an accounting system is like telling a doctor that a trachea is a respiratory system.

2) Are bitcoins a commodity or currency?

While some commodities have been used as mediums of exchange, ALL commodities have uses beyond that limited purpose.  Bitcoins do not share this property.  If I have a bitcoin, I can't do anything with it other than spend it.  That makes it a currency.  Claiming otherwise renders the terms currency/commodity meaningless.


  Lost me on that one.
 

You and Hazek might be happy, but not everyone else will be.  "Currency" and "commodity" have separate and distinct meanings for a reason.  The bitcoin community will be doing itself a disservice by using the terms interchangeably/haphazardly, or in a manner which contradicts general usage by the rest of the world.

I care not what a law says.  I'm concerned only with the economic meaning of these words.

What are people even discussing here? If it had to do with what the law considers it I guess the discussion would make sense, otherwise just call it what you want. I'll call it a currency. Hazek will call it a commodity. Everyone's happy.


A bicycle could also be used as a weapon (by hitting someone in the head with it). So it has value as a weapon. Do people call it a weapon? Most people won't, but the newspaper might do it that day ("His weapon was - a bike!"). That's fine with me.

Really?  Care to explain your logically consistent reasoning?  If it violates the definition of a commodity, then I'm going to call B.S.

This is a rediculous comparision, that does not deserve a response.

Sure.  All currencies are standardized units of measurements of relative value.  I'm sure that doesn't tell you anything, but that is what they are.
A currency is any economic good routinely used within a community for indirect exchange. Local currencies are still currencies, and in a sense all currencies are local--none of them are accepted universally.

The bitcoin system may have novelty value, but bitcoins were never novelties because, as has already been stated, they don't exist in any sense other than as completely abstract units of measurement, like points in a game.

If the bitcoin system can be considered a system of currency, the economic good it is based on is not a commodity, but a service: the distributed service offered by every other bitcoin user of recognizing your participation as an equal, and enforcing the rules of the game.

No, because gold has unique and valuable physical properties, even if you completely disregard its use as a currency. There would be value in direct use even without anyone to trade with, and likely even more value in terms of direct exchange.