Pages:
Author

Topic: Serious Question about Bitcoin, please answer (Read 1315 times)

legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
December 29, 2013, 03:26:43 PM
#28
Yes you are correct.  Had I not provided proof of my assumption, that bitcoins are in fact NOT currency, as legally defined, I would have committed a fallacy of begging the question--leading to circular logic. With the addition of a second begging, clearly redundant.  But I do not agree that " raising the question" is an appropriate replacement regarding proper grammar.  Wiki can suck it.

Are we clear that bitcoins cannot be considered "currency" as currency is defined as paper tradable from hand to hand, per Blacks definition?  Should You, the human, find yourself in a legal issue using bitcoins--- this will of course, be a part of the Laws grammar.

yes i stand corrected!  Kiss

All digital dictionaries should be considered supplementary as all digital info can be altered. do you agree?

Certainly, digital info can be altered, although there are reliable sources of digital information.

Regardless, it seems we are now all on the same page.  It doesn't "beg the question", it "raises the question".

Now that we've gotten past that, we can work on answering the question that has been raised. . .

Within U.S. case law, bitcoin is already considered "a money".  I suspect that it will only be a matter of time before a federal court determines that it is also "a currency".


If the government says it it must be true.   Bitcoin is not money or currency and is not likely to become either. It is a digital collectible. It is the digital equivalent of trading cards.   
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4794
Yes you are correct.  Had I not provided proof of my assumption, that bitcoins are in fact NOT currency, as legally defined, I would have committed a fallacy of begging the question--leading to circular logic. With the addition of a second begging, clearly redundant.  But I do not agree that " raising the question" is an appropriate replacement regarding proper grammar.  Wiki can suck it.

Are we clear that bitcoins cannot be considered "currency" as currency is defined as paper tradable from hand to hand, per Blacks definition?  Should You, the human, find yourself in a legal issue using bitcoins--- this will of course, be a part of the Laws grammar.

yes i stand corrected!  Kiss

All digital dictionaries should be considered supplementary as all digital info can be altered. do you agree?

Certainly, digital info can be altered, although there are reliable sources of digital information.

Regardless, it seems we are now all on the same page.  It doesn't "beg the question", it "raises the question".

Now that we've gotten past that, we can work on answering the question that has been raised. . .

Within U.S. case law, bitcoin is already considered "a money".  I suspect that it will only be a matter of time before a federal court determines that it is also "a currency".
El
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
Yes you are correct.  Had I not provided proof of my assumption, that bitcoins are in fact NOT currency, as legally defined, I would have committed a fallacy of begging the question--leading to circular logic. With the addition of a second begging, clearly redundant.  But I do not agree that " raising the question" is an appropriate replacement regarding proper grammar.  Wiki can suck it.

Are we clear that bitcoins cannot be considered "currency" as currency is defined as paper tradable from hand to hand, per Blacks definition?  Should You, the human, find yourself in a legal issue using bitcoins--- this will of course, be a part of the Laws grammar.

yes i stand corrected!  Kiss

All digital dictionaries should be considered supplementary as all digital info can be altered. do you agree?
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4794
No dude, wiki obviscates true definition, it should NOT be your reference.   I thought peeps knew that about Wiki? It's additional data to be sure, but anyone can put what ever in there....lol....and a thousand Frenchmen COULD be wrong.

For true definition, you have to go back in time.  To HARD PRINT. The meanings get simpler, and less occulted.

And what of Britannica and dictionary.reference.com?  Are you simply choosing to ignore the fact that the definition they present demonstrates that you are using the phrase "begs the question" incorrectly?

If I find a print edition of a dictionary that also demonstrates that you are using the phrase "begs the question" incorrectly, will you admit that you made an error?
El
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
Ok, well...that's probably why the Supreme Court doesn't use WIKI for Case Law  Roll Eyes

And when they do, it's time to sell the farm. Kiss
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1060
No dude, wiki obviscates true definition, it should NOT be your reference.   I thought peeps knew that about Wiki? It's additional data to be sure, but anyone can put what ever in there....lol....and a thousand Frenchmen COULD be wrong.

For true definition, you have to go back in time.  To HARD PRINT. The meanings get simpler, and less occulted.

I hate when people say anyone can edit Wikipedia. It's completely false. Try it, your changes will be instantly reverted even if correct.idiots.

Ps obfuscate
El
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
No dude, wiki obviscates true definition, it should NOT be your reference.   I thought peeps knew that about Wiki? It's additional data to be sure, but anyone can put what ever in there....lol....and a thousand Frenchmen COULD be wrong.

For true definition, you have to go back in time.  To HARD PRINT. The meanings get simpler, and less occulted.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4794
This begs the question, what is currency?
- snip -
You'll find I'm a stickler for definitions....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
- snip -
I do not agree that " raising the question" is an appropriate replacement regarding proper grammar.  Wiki can suck it.
- snip -

Perhaps not such a "stickler for definitions" after all?
El
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
Yes you are correct.  Had I not provided proof of my assumption, that bitcoins are in fact NOT currency, as legally defined, I would have committed a fallacy of begging the question--leading to circular logic. With the addition of a second begging, clearly redundant.  But I do not agree that " raising the question" is an appropriate replacement regarding proper grammar.  Wiki can suck it.

Are we clear that bitcoins cannot be considered "currency" as currency is defined as paper tradable from hand to hand, per Blacks definition?  Should You, the human, find yourself in a legal issue using bitcoins--- this will of course, be a part of the Laws grammar.
legendary
Activity: 4438
Merit: 3387
This begs the question, what is currency?
...
Edit: this begs the question.

Ack! Twice in one post even!

"raises the question", not "begs the question"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1060
How's this differ from a token at an arcade?
El
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
This begs the question, what is currency?

From Blacks Law

What is CURRENCY?
Coined money and such bank-notes or other paper money as are authorized by law aud do in fact circulate from hand to hand as the medium of exchange. Griswold v. Hepburn, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 33; Leonard v. State, 115 Ala. SO, 22 South. 504; Insurance Co. v. Keirou, 27 111. 505; Insurance Co. v. Ivupfer, 2S 111. 332, 81 Am. Dec. 284; Lackey v. Miller, 01 N. O. 20.



Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/currency/#ixzz2onbOTlow

So....guess that settles it Roll Eyes

Edit: this begs the question.  Are paper wallets considered " currency"?   Lol
You'll find I'm a stickler for definitions....
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
@OP your basic premise is wrong, bitcoin is not currency. When you realize that bitcoin is not currency it all makes sense.
El
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
Your my second post here and since it's been awhile since you asked with no reply here goes:

The bitcoin market is new.  To " get in" means converting your currently accepted assets to bitcoins for use.  for me, I would just go and spend the 1% with coin base  and call it an " investment" in bit coin.   Some call this " fools tax".  It's what we pay to learn, by directly using, the currency. Or, you can sell something physical you have, for bitcoins.  That's what I'm doing.

As bitcoins become more accepted by both merchants and customers alike, I believe the market to " get in" using usd and converting them to bitcoins, will become competitive, mYbe free.  Like it is to register with most websites like this one.

Just my .00000002
Veterans feel free to add
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
@Player01 In the same way the adoption of cryptoccurencies will be accepted because people are already loosing trust in a fiat paper currency.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1060
You'll start seeing businesses offer btc coupons. Also coinbase absurd 1% will drop once circle comes around.

Lastly you don't have to worry about fraudulent transactions and wasting time calling to get a new card, eg. Target.

Very lastly, not many people qualify for a cash back card and especially no annual fee. You forgot that huh? Plus many Americans are preyed upon like the rush card that targets black people, charges absurd fees and no cash back!

Not many people are rich, white and have a credit score that can qualify for a rewards card with no annual fee like yourself and brethren.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
the real adoption of crypto will come when it is more stable than fiat. For that, we must wait for the big fiat crisis.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4794
So what it looks like to me is that you are saying that a paradigm shift so large as for you to be paid your regular salary in bitcoin is required for bitcoin to become cheaper? I'm not saying that bitcoin isn't ideologically better. I am saying that it is going up against practical considerations that are keeping it from going mainstream. So far in this thread people's conditions by which bitcoin becomes cheaper have all been very impractical, at least in the short term (10 years or so.) Even if your employer were to pay you in BTC, your company would have to pay the exchange fee.

My topic isn't what does BTC need to do for YOU to love it. My topic is what does BTC need to do for mainstream users to love it.To me the only solution is for the exchanges to somehow drop the deposit fees.

There are several companies that are already paying their employees with bitcoin, if not their entire salary, then at least a portion of it.  Those companies that are willing to accept bitcoin as payment will have to do something with those bitcoin that they receive.  They could exchange it for fiat (costing them "exchange fees"), but it is cheaper for everyone involved if they just use it to pay those employees that are interested in receiving some of their salary in bitcoins.

Those employees will then be looking for somewhere to spend those bitcoins rather than exchange them.  This creates additional opportunities for additional companies to accept bitcoin and a market pressure to do so.  Those companies can then use those bitcoins to pay some of their employees salaries as well. And so on, and so on.

If a company's supplier announces that they will accept bitcoin as payment, then there are even more reasons for the company to accept bitcoin: customers that want to pay with it, employees that want it as a portion of their salary, and suppliers that are interested in receiving it as payment.  The best and most profitable way for the company to acquire these bitcoins isn't to exchange fiat for them, but rather to accept bitcoins for their product/service.

Note:  Bitcoin is already being used.  You keep talking about what needs to happen before it can be accepted (by the public or by companies).  It already is.  The rest is the snowball of network effect.  The only question is how quickly will the bitcoin economy expand.

newbie
Activity: 17
Merit: 0
So what it looks like to me is that you are saying that a paradigm shift so large as for you to be paid your regular salary in bitcoin is required for bitcoin to become cheaper? I'm not saying that bitcoin isn't ideologically better. I am saying that it is going up against practical considerations that are keeping it from going mainstream. So far in this thread people's conditions by which bitcoin becomes cheaper have all been very impractical, at least in the short term (10 years or so.) Even if your employer were to pay you in BTC, your company would have to pay the exchange fee.

My topic isn't what does BTC need to do for YOU to love it. My topic is what does BTC need to do for mainstream users to love it.To me the only solution is for the exchanges to somehow drop the deposit fees.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4794
December 24, 2013, 06:12:20 PM
#9
I think it is interesting how few people want to talk about this issue. From where I'm standing this is probably the single biggest issue holding bitcoin from being adopted as a mainstream currency. CC's pay you to use them. Paypal is free. Bitcoin COSTS money. No one seems to want to admit that this is a problem.

If I take my salary in bitcoin, then using bitcoin no longer has this "exchange fee" that you keep mentioning.  Instead, there is an "exchagne fee" to get USD that I can then spend to pay my credit card bill (which if I'm carrying a balance also has an "interest fee").  Or instead I could just directly spend the bitcoins, and avoid the "exchange fee" and "interest fee".  I might even find merchants that offer lower prices for bitcoin payments, saving me even more.  And the bitcoins that I don't immediately spend intrinsicallly increase in value over time due to deflation!  Try that with your credit card and USD.

Seems people won't want to use USD and credit cards because of all these immediate fees that are avoided with bitcoins.
Pages:
Jump to: