Banksycoin, panju1 and arbitrage001
Thanks you for saying what I would have said. The only thing I would add is that there needs to be a method of checking accumulation of any store of value decided upon by all because without that, it is fundamentally as flawed as what is in use today. I have other posts that explain why and those interested should read them. Does anyone here see any obvious faults in the guidelines I presented above for an ideal currency?
Topic: What makes a currency meaningful? (Read 3079 times)
If you can trade for a currency then it has meaning. If no one will trade (for goods, services, other currency, speculation, etc.) then there is no meaning (although the word "meaning" could be explored/debated for a while too).
If you have one person with a currency and no one to trade anything for it there is no meaning regardless of the quantity or nature of the currency. If even one other person decides to trade something for that currency then the currency gains meaning and value.
The distance that the value extends to could be used as a measure of the quantity of meaning the currency has. If only two people are trading with that currency then the meaning is minimal. But if 2 million people are trading with that currency then it's meaning is greater.
If you have one person with a currency and no one to trade anything for it there is no meaning regardless of the quantity or nature of the currency. If even one other person decides to trade something for that currency then the currency gains meaning and value.
The distance that the value extends to could be used as a measure of the quantity of meaning the currency has. If only two people are trading with that currency then the meaning is minimal. But if 2 million people are trading with that currency then it's meaning is greater.
someone willing to accept it as payment for a good or service.
Rather than someone, the definition should be most people.
If I decide to accept blocks of stones in exchange of goods, that will not make stones currency.
A meaningful currency is a medium of exchange backed by community with healthy economic system (production and service).
What's the definition of "currency?" 
“Currency” refers to a medium representative of “value [i.e., possession] given but not yet received” (common knowledge?). Currency is “meaningful” when it succeeds in this representation (i.e., it succeeds in the transmission of possession).
I know you probably mean well but as I said in a another thread, equality is literally impossible in a world borne of inequality. Everything you see around you exists because of power. Without inequality, we would still be living in caves today and I don't say this lightly. There needs to be 2 extremities for money to work/flow, the extremely rich and the extremely poor.
The societies of the world as we know it would crumble completely if everyone were equal. It is unavoidable.
(Colorization mine.)The societies of the world as we know it would crumble completely if everyone were equal. It is unavoidable.
Key: grey = “Peril: Tribe”, yellow = “Caution: Possession”, orange = “Warning: Money”, red = “Danger: State”
Everyone is equal by the measures begotten of state, money, possession, and tribe when these are not.
What's the definition of "currency?"
someone willing to accept it as payment for a good or service.
Quote from: ObscureBean
There needs to be 2 extremities for money to work/flow, the extremely rich and the extremely poor.
This is a false premise you have been indoctrinated with. Extreme wealth is not a product of great contribution but of an extraction process. If you don't understand this as the new reality, you will never fully understand the manufactured hardships/nuisances in your life. Extreme poverty mutes the vitality of a population, inhibits competition and progress and endangers everyones safety and well being. When you remove the ability to compete, you create rent takers and not innovators.Quote from: ObscureBean
The societies of the world as we know it would crumble completely if everyone were equal.
I never said complete equality was possible or even desirable. Advantages must be given to the most able because without a reward system, there is no impetus for progress but it must be checked before it becomes what it has become today, a compendium of shadowy oligarchs doing as they will and perverting every democracy. Have you really considered the state of the world today?
I know you probably mean well but as I said in a another thread, equality is literally impossible in a world borne of inequality. Everything you see around you exists because of power. Without inequality, we would still be living in caves today and I don't say this lightly. There needs to be 2 extremities for money to work/flow, the extremely rich and the extremely poor.
The societies of the world as we know it would crumble completely if everyone were equal. It is unavoidable.
The societies of the world as we know it would crumble completely if everyone were equal. It is unavoidable.
Easy of use, low transaction fees and wallet safety - this can make currency meaningful 
What makes anything meaningful? People must have faith in it. If they do and there's a clear use for it then I think it is both useful and meaningful. I think bitcoin even excels because it's decentralized as opposed to being controlled by a central authority so to me it is even more meaningful than fiat.
Quote from: username18333
How do you know it is not growing away from hierarchy, money, ownership, and tribalism entirely?
When all those 'network' activities are identified, recorded and available for sale we can safely say we are moving in the wrong direction. The ubiquity of the currency. That's why digital currency is so meaningful already and will become second nature very soon as it already is. Think about all the people paying for their starbucks with their phone. Everytime I'm in the drive through at starbucks everyone has their phone out. That will transfer to other markets and already is. This is the true beginnings of the transfer from paper or plastic to purely electronic.
Your sample does not account for those that brew their own coffee, or, even, those that patronize the establishment on foot.
lol! Okay, well I've seen plenty of smartphones in-hand by folks on foot in starbucks. And yeah... folks brew home at coffee too. They also have groceries delivered to their doorsteps and a few have even had this service paid for by bitcoin! The ubiquitous nature grows...
How do you know it is not growing away from hierarchy, money, ownership, and tribalism entirely?
The ubiquity of the currency. That's why digital currency is so meaningful already and will become second nature very soon as it already is. Think about all the people paying for their starbucks with their phone. Everytime I'm in the drive through at starbucks everyone has their phone out. That will transfer to other markets and already is. This is the true beginnings of the transfer from paper or plastic to purely electronic.
Your sample does not account for those that brew their own coffee, or, even, those that patronize the establishment on foot.
lol! Okay, well I've seen plenty of smartphones in-hand by folks on foot in starbucks. And yeah... folks brew home at coffee too. They also have groceries delivered to their doorsteps and a few have even had this service paid for by bitcoin! The ubiquitous nature grows...
The ubiquity of the currency. That's why digital currency is so meaningful already and will become second nature very soon as it already is. Think about all the people paying for their starbucks with their phone. Everytime I'm in the drive through at starbucks everyone has their phone out. That will transfer to other markets and already is. This is the true beginnings of the transfer from paper or plastic to purely electronic.
Your sample does not account for those that brew their own coffee, or, even, those that patronize the establishment on foot.
The ubiquity of the currency. That's why digital currency is so meaningful already and will become second nature very soon as it already is. Think about all the people paying for their starbucks with their phone. Everytime I'm in the drive through at starbucks everyone has their phone out. That will transfer to other markets and already is. This is the true beginnings of the transfer from paper or plastic to purely electronic.
Quote from: jaysabi
It seems to me limits on accumulation prevent it from being widely adopted. If as a technical limitation there is a limit to how much wealth you can have accumulated in the coin, why would you even bother with it in the first place?
It depends upon where the limits are placed. How much more valuable should one human being be than another? This is the philosophical question that all of us need to settle within ourselves before we can move forward as a species. Once you have wealth enough to ensure sufficient comfort for yourself, your progeny and theirs, all other accumulations are about power and/or some other perniciousness.
Quote from: Charles Eisenstein, Negative-Interest Economics, Sacred Economics link=http://sacred-economics.com/sacred-economics-chapter-12-negative-interest-economics
In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.
People who think it has value . At the end of the day things like paper money and bitcoin are kind of useless without people who buy into the concept that these papers or code are more valuable than something like a BMW. Or a handy in the bathroom at Subway.
Quote from: jaysabi
It seems to me limits on accumulation prevent it from being widely adopted. If as a technical limitation there is a limit to how much wealth you can have accumulated in the coin, why would you even bother with it in the first place?
It depends upon where the limits are placed. How much more valuable should one human being be than another? This is the philosophical question that all of us need to settle within ourselves before we can move forward as a species. Once you have wealth enough to ensure sufficient comfort for yourself, your progeny and theirs, all other accumulations are about power and/or some other perniciousness. Jump to: