Topic: Ranking Bitcoin as Money vs Gold and vs Paper Money (Read 2162 times)

I don't think I really believe there is a Satoshi out there, I think that is just a fake name by a smart man who chooses to be anonymous because he is known to have too much power, known to be too rich. That is certainly a threat to his life as he has individualistic power with bitcoins, not like other rich people who keep their money in assets and banks. Either Satoshi is one person or a group of smart mathematicians, now that's a mystery.

This meme was once used to strengthen the fiat rule in the hearts of the people: A mark is a mark is a mark (disregard it being a gold mark or a paper mark). They tried to keep the cross-fungibility between gold marks and paper marks. It turned out not to be true.

A bitcoin is a bitcoin is a bitcoin - as long as you are in posession of the unlocking key, there is no difference between bitcoin fractions with different histories on the chain. Some will try to destroy the fungibility, but they will not succeed.

The key word here is that 1 bitcoin will always be equal to ANOTHER bitcoin. So its not 1 btc = 1 btc, but 1 btc = ANOTHER btc.

And this might not always remain true for all bitcoins. For example, the value of bitcoins that has been to a certain known address might be auctioned off as some sort of an antique item in the future. Perhaps the first address Satoshi spends from after he goes public. Who knows.

The best way to define its fungibility is that 1 bitcoin will always be equal to another bitcoin. All the speculations and calculations about how 1 bitcoin is equal to 283 USD etc is determining its price, not its value. So in terms of value, 1 btc = 1 btc always. Regarding the anonymity of bitcoin, yes bitcoins cannot be tracked as they are exchanged between private keys, but the transaction is always recorded publicly.

Jon Matonis former exec of Visa and from the Bitcoin Foundation says,
I agree with Matonis, bitcoin is perfectly fungible.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1VtZT5HEFs

Even all the transactions which are ever made in the btc world are recorded, and there is a proof of transaction taking place. Although, it is nearly impossible to to track and decipher a private key, because tracking it would require to prove it if it belongs to somebody in the U.S and there is always a big possibility of it being of an overseas user and then it would inflict with privacy regulations. That's how it is illegal to know who made the transactions.

That is not accurate. Bitcoin does not track coins, only transactions. If A, B, and C have 1 BTC each and A sends 1 BTC to B, and  then B sends 2 BTC to C, then you could say that 33% of C's coins came from A, but you can't determine which ones because coins are not tracked.

Fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution. That is, it is the property of essences or goods which are capable of being substituted in place of one another.

Bitcoin keeps a history of every coin and hence they are not fungible or designed to be so. Indeed the difference between freshly minted coins and coins that have passed through many hands are part of the system. Agreed that the appropriate response should be found but Bitcoins are not fungible.

I think volatility only affects the Unit of Account property, I don't agree that it affects Store of Value over long periods of time.

Why do you say bitcoin is not fungible? Bitcoin has perfect fungibility opposed to gold that can be mixed with other metals and have a tungsten core and you'd never know.

Your rankings for bitcoin sound good in theory but taking it in a practical perspective and comparing values now, I think as a medium of Exchange, it is really good. As a Unit of Account, i feel its terrible. Yes, its portable, hell let's even go and call it durable. Divisibility is one of the best, fungibility? Not very good at that, right now yeah? As a store of value, I don't really think so its good because bitcoin seems to be too volatile at the moment. We gotta keep pushing it, it will be better

I must tell that theoretical  things don't cost so much in practice because don't affect maybe at all the real life. In this kind of view all the point giuven above must be seen in the practical view and not in theoretical one. Don't have to much importance I think.

Agree with your reasoning but don't agree with the your factors which affect your question. When you measure something you must take in your reasoning ALL the factors which affect the picture and not only one. You take which performs better the tasks. But you forget which is most used in the everyday life. And this is most important compare to yours. If we will take in consideration ALL the factors mine reasoning is more close to the reality. So more reasonable.

...

BitProdigy

I think that your analysis is a good start as well as good entertainment (I mean that nicely, intellectual entertainment).

Circumstances will change the ratings of each of paper money, gold and BTC.  For example, a .gov crackdown on BTC purchases (perfectly possible) would change some of the BTC ratings.  GROSS "Ctrl + P" would devalue currency, there are those who state that money printing (electrons anyway) is WAY UP, but the reason for no infation is that money velocity has cratered (people are buying less stuff).

IMO, holding some proportion of each "form of money" is a good idea.  Some CA$H (real long-green cash), some gold and some BTC.  How much of each also depends on personal circumstances...  The very wealthy would likely step-up relative amounts of gold vs. cash for example.  The rich might buy more BTC as well.

So, this is a complicated discussion!  Your analysis is a jumping off point...  A good one, but just a start.

These rating are not about which is the post popular used today. If it were the question, "which is the most used medium of exchange today" of course the answer would be paper currency. But that is not the question.

The rating is based on which is better at the function. Which performs the task the best. If I want to send one million dollars to India, I will have to use Western Union who will charge me a fee and ask me for all of my personal information and the process will take several days. If I want to send one million bitcoins to India, they arrive in seconds, no fees, no middle man taking a cut, and no risking of my personal information. So as far as performing the function as a medium of exchange, Bitcoin outperforms paper money.

Many people have disagreed that bitcoin deserves a (9) for Store of Value. Let me explain myself:

The properties that makes something a good store of value are predictable supply, and scarcity. Bitcoin does those perfectly, way better than gold. We could someday in the future tow a comet to earth with more gold and silver on it than has ever been mined on the planet crashing the price of gold and silver instantly. This could never happen to bitcoin because it has a hard limit guaranteed by math. There will never be more than 21 million, so it's value storage properly is very very high.

The only reason I do not give bitcoin a (10) is because there is the slight possibility of either an EMP blast from the sun that knocks out all electronic devices on the planet at once, or some super computer is invented that breaks the cryptography of bitcoin. If were not for those two things, I would give bitcoin a solid (10) for Store of Value.

The common rebuttal has been that bitcoin is not a good store of value because of it's current volatility, but volatility within the first 10 years of it's invention is no argument against it's Storage of Value properties. Let's say you stored all of your wealth in bitcoin in the year 2011, do you think you would say that bitcoin has done a good job of storying your value? Yes!!

You would only think bitcoin is a poor store of value if you bought at the peak of a speculative rally, but even then, I submit that if you stored all of your wealth into bitcoin at $1200 per coin this was not a bad thing, wait 5 years, 10 years, 20 years and come back and tell me if bitcoin has done a good job storing your value! Indeed, bitcoin is perfectly limited, and therefore has near perfect value storage properties.

Medium of exchange, store of value and unit of account are the functions of money.

The other things are properties that are relevant for those functions, better properties means that the money type can fullfill its functions better. Portability, Durability, Divisibility, Fungibility. You can add unfalsifiability, hideability, unconfiscability and remotetransferability, properties where bitcoin fare excellently.

Being well known, or recognizability (as money) is one where bitcoin currently is not so good. Also cultural trustability is rather bad, gold however being totally ingrained in art, literature and story telling.

I feel it is not a good store of value because it has little to no utility, other than as a medium of exchange. Its value currently depends on the whims of the people that use it and could evaporate at any time. Anyway, "store of value" is not well-defined so I expect many different opinions.

The volatility makes it a poor unit of account.

it's volatility, but it does not make sense to take into account that value for now, because bitcoin hasn't reached mainstream, by any means, in theory bitcoin store of value property should be very good in the future if the coin will survive

can you explain what makes you say bitcoin is not a great store of value? is the current volatility the problem, or is it something else?

Even for me this classification have no sense. Where is made and which criteria are used to build it. To many votes seems without meaning and agree with n2004al about what him has told. Seems that the author has an affection for bitcoin and give votes in favor of it. Bitcoins is good but never cannot substitute the paper money. Maybe will be complementary with it but this it will be enough.