Topic: Why bitcoin isn't currency. - page 14. (Read 21382 times)

Simply holding a piece of paper should not enrich you. That is fucked. You didnt do a thing. You didnt innovate you didnt improve you didnt do shit, but sit on your ass and you think you should be rewarded for that?

Look at the way bitcoin is working. Hold and be enriched!   More people want to use the "currency" and the value changes, so for doing nothing you get more purchasing power or if less people want to use the "currency" you lose purchasing power. That is not moral.

It isnt the unit that should change it is the amount of them.

If there where only 10 inches in existence and we wanted to measure a foot we would have to change the length of an inch. So if you had a 6 inch cock it would now be 5 inches.         

I'm having difficulty following that conversation and get lost on almost every statement.  Maybe you could help?  Here is a small example:

"ChrisandAmber North "because prices adjust not only to the quantity of goods but the quantity of money." That is not honest money! It is not the value of the currency that should change with demand but the quantity. That system enriches people by simply holding currency. That is immoral. You should not get increased value for doing nothing. That is the way bitcoin and currency speculation works now."

Questions:  
1) What is the immoral act of simply holding currency?  
It is very clearly ethical to act or not to act based on one's own agreements and decisions.  This holding currency though also seems morally neutral.  If one benefits from saving due to the immoral spending behavior of others, it would even seem to be on the side of "moral".  What is the immorality here?

2) Prices adjust to both the quantity of goods as well as the quantity of money.  This is market dynamics at work.  In what way does this invalidate the honesty of a money?  This would be true of any form of money, even gold.

3) "It is not the value of the currency that should change with demand but the quantity" (demand of what? quantity of what?)

This gets further muddied with the assumption that governments are those with the role of defining money (something they are uniformly poor at doing though out history).

Your proposal seems to re-create the problems of Bretton-Woods.  The problems predate this period, but were strongly exemplified by the accord.
Centralizing this decision is a part of the problem and destroys the value of the many decision makers of the world and replaces it with a central decider.  
The fundamental problem is that when you have a government fixing prices of anything (especially gold or money) the first thing one will buy is the government.  The greatest misfortune there being that the currency of government is so often violence, as these have the monopoly of that within their geographies.
Consider that each holder of the world reserve currency through history has been the supreme military power of its age and you may take the meaning from that.  Supporting that military is typically the downfall of the economic system.

Bitcoin offers a peaceful way out of that burden for the USA in this age of our own time.  This gives the people of the USA the strongest interest in seeing that happen as it is they that bear this expense, as well as the repercussions of it being exercised globally.

I am chris my wife is Amber, you are the one who is mistaken.

Please comment on the post if you see an error.

Please read this conversation.


https://www.facebook.com/mark.thornton.3760/posts/10153448347155650?comment_id=45550099&offset=0&total_comments=32¬if_t=feed_comment_reply

Let's get back on topic, please.

Now, with precision, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Unlike other units of measure, money does not measure the physical properties it has in common with other objects, like a standard weight or length would do. Instead, it measures exchange value - which is never a physical property.

Regarding this, bitcoin is just like any other form of money.

The way that the Bitcoin network organizes data into a structure using the laws of mathematics to designate value is no different in principle than the way that the physical laws of nature organize matter into a crystalline structure that is gold.

If the internet or Bitcoin network stopped operating Bitcoin would disappear the same way that the expanding red giant sun will destroy all gold on earth in less than 5 billion years. The underlying structural organization would fall into entropy because the underlying order producing that structure break down and get superseded.

I wrote it was the historical definition.  I'm not interested in discussing the oddities of the calendar and time definitions, due to the mismatch between the current, physical definition of the second and the astronomic dynamics of the Earth around the sun.

What is the point your trying to make, exactly?   That neither a second, a minute, a day or a year are units of time??   Yes they are.   It's not because their definition is complicated that they are not units.   The devil is in the details, but fortunately we can ignore the details most of the time.

I'd say that's rather the definition of an hour (the historical definition anyway, since the second and thus the hour is no more defined with any astronomical concept, nowadays), being 1/24 of a solar day.    And yes, a day is the time Earth takes to turn around itself.  A solar day is still a day, it's just that the rotation of Earth in this case is relative to the Sun, not distant stars.

And it is a unit of time.   Not the most accurate one, sure, but it is still a unit of time.

Troy Ounce, Avoirdupois Ounce

Both are days.  You did ask what a day is, without more details.  The general answer is that a day is the time Earth takes to turn around itself.  In a solar day, the Sun is used as a spatial reference.  In a sidereal day, distant stars.  In anyway, both concepts fit the definition of "the time Earth takes to turn around itself", that's why we use the same word to name them, and distinct them only with an adjective (solar or sidereal).

And no, I don't need Wikipedia to know that.  I've learnt that at elementary school and you probably did too if you paid any attention.   This is fucking basic common knowledge.

I don't need Wikipedia to know what a day is, thanks.  But it's useful to show it to you since apparently you failed elementary school.

Of time.   Jeez.


I don't know where you're going.   If think there is nothing wrong with bitcoin being a unit.  It's a bit polysemic, but that's fine.

That was a quote from Wikipedia.   Obviously for some things the world "physical" has to be taken metaphorically.   Also, I'm not sure "physical" means "material".   Time is a physical concept so I would not be surprised if it could be considered as a physical quantity, thus making the second a physical unit (few people would doubt that, anyway).


As I wrote, things would have been clearer if Satoshi had used a different word to call the "substance" and the "unit"  (as I imagined, with "bitgold" and "bitgram" for instance).  He did not, so "bitcoin" has several meanings.   It's a bit as if we were using the word "water" both for the liquid substance and for a standard amount of it.

A unit of measurement is a definite magnitude of a physical quantity.

A bitcoin is a unit for an amount of bitcoins.   It sounds like a tautology, but it's not.   A satoshi (10e-8 bitcoins) is an other unit for the amount of bitcoins.    Had satoshi called his system "bitgold", he could have called the standard unit a "bitgram" for instance.  Things would maybe have been clearer.   He did not, so that might confuse some.  The thing is that there is no other word to call the "electronic substance" that can be transferred with the bitcoin software.


Whether bitcoins as a whole can be used as a measurement for value (in the sense "commercial value") is a very different matter.  Whether it is true or not does not change the fact that bitcoin is indeed a unit.

What I am saying is I didnt define currency.

Now you're just trolling.

The coin is the UNIT.

It doesnt say avoidance it say substitution

I dont claim that. I didnt define money. I didnt pull the shit out of my ass. Money is a UNIT of account. You act like I am the only person on the plant that says money is a UNIT!