Why bitcoin isn't currency. - page 3.

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

Quote from: Erdogan on December 18, 2013, 10:57:33 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 18, 2013, 08:29:50 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on December 18, 2013, 08:18:59 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 18, 2013, 08:13:38 PM

Is the community ready to admit that it is not currency? Grin

Of course not. Bitcoin is, by definition and design, a currency. Your arguments are rediculous.

No one can define bitcoin that is the problem and I am not the only one saying it. Peter Shciff, Gary north, Paul krugman, the central bank of china, business insider and many more

They will have to come here and back up their statements with reason and logic.

And have some arguments against the other definitions as well.

Because an orange is round, orange and a fruit the same time.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 18, 2013, 08:29:50 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on December 18, 2013, 08:18:59 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 18, 2013, 08:13:38 PM

Is the community ready to admit that it is not currency? Grin

Of course not. Bitcoin is, by definition and design, a currency. Your arguments are rediculous.

No one can define bitcoin that is the problem and I am not the only one saying it. Peter Shciff, Gary north, Paul krugman, the central bank of china, business insider and many more

They will have to come here and back up their statements with reason and logic.

sublime5447

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: MoonShadow on December 18, 2013, 08:30:55 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 18, 2013, 08:29:50 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on December 18, 2013, 08:18:59 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 18, 2013, 08:13:38 PM

Is the community ready to admit that it is not currency? Grin

Of course not. Bitcoin is, by definition and design, a currency. Your arguments are rediculous.

No one can define bitcoin that is the problem.

I can and have. Your problem is that you won't accept my definition of "currency".

Really what was the definition again?

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 18, 2013, 08:29:50 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on December 18, 2013, 08:18:59 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 18, 2013, 08:13:38 PM

Is the community ready to admit that it is not currency? Grin

Of course not. Bitcoin is, by definition and design, a currency. Your arguments are rediculous.

No one can define bitcoin that is the problem.

I can and have. Your problem is that you won't accept my definition of "currency".

sublime5447

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: MoonShadow on December 18, 2013, 08:18:59 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 18, 2013, 08:13:38 PM

Is the community ready to admit that it is not currency? Grin

Of course not. Bitcoin is, by definition and design, a currency. Your arguments are rediculous.

No one can define bitcoin that is the problem and I am not the only one saying it. Peter Shciff, Gary north, Paul krugman, the central bank of china, business insider and many more

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 18, 2013, 08:13:38 PM

Is the community ready to admit that it is not currency? Grin

Of course not. Bitcoin is, by definition and design, a currency. Your arguments are rediculous.

sublime5447

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Is the community ready to admit that it is not currency? Grin

porc

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: deisik on December 09, 2013, 12:37:41 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

For example I could say that one ocean front villa is worth 10 Ferrari. Now that is obviously my judgement and therefore is subjective. However everybody will have an opinion on this price. Some will say it is to high (villa is worth less Ferrari) and some will say it is to low (villa is worth more Ferrari).

Now what is clear from the above example is that I can only measure value by something which is itself valuable. This should be obvious: something has value can not be measured by something that has no value!

Bitcoin itself has no value. Now you might say that Bitcoin can be transferred cheaply. Well that does not give the unit Bitcoin any value whatsoever. If "dadljf" could be transferred cheaply does that make "dadljf" valuable? Of course not!

As far as economics is concerned, nothing has value in itself and by itself. Value is not established by some inherent quality of the good (intrinsic theory of value, abandoned) or amount of labor required to produce it (labor theory of value, abandoned), but is determined by the importance an individual places on it for the achievement of his ends. The latter refers to the subjective theory of value accepted by most economic schools of today

And stop cross-posting...

What you just wrote is not relevant to my post.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: ?? on ??

For example I could say that one ocean front villa is worth 10 Ferrari. Now that is obviously my judgement and therefore is subjective. However everybody will have an opinion on this price. Some will say it is to high (villa is worth less Ferrari) and some will say it is to low (villa is worth more Ferrari).

Now what is clear from the above example is that I can only measure value by something which is itself valuable. This should be obvious: something has value can not be measured by something that has no value!

Bitcoin itself has no value. Now you might say that Bitcoin can be transferred cheaply. Well that does not give the unit Bitcoin any value whatsoever. If "dadljf" could be transferred cheaply does that make "dadljf" valuable? Of course not!

As far as economics is concerned, nothing has value in itself and by itself. Value is not established by some inherent quality of the good (intrinsic theory of value, abandoned) or amount of labor required to produce it (labor theory of value, abandoned), but is determined by the importance an individual places on it for the achievement of his ends. The latter refers to the subjective theory of value accepted by most economic schools of today

And stop cross-posting...

porc

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: shawshankinmate37927 on December 08, 2013, 09:07:58 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Now lets look at gold. What is golds value to humanity? Well it looks pretty. If I wear it people will say: Wow that looks great I want it. Now do you agree that gold looks pretty? Well it doesnt matter. What you do know is that you also like pretty things. If you think gold is pretty is irrelevant.

What about tulips? Do you think they're pretty too?

you have not read and thought about what I wrote: gold is pretty and rare and thus valuable. Tulips are pretty but not rare.

shawshankinmate37927

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1000

Bitcoin: The People's Bailout

Quote from: ?? on ??

Now lets look at gold. What is golds value to humanity? Well it looks pretty. If I wear it people will say: Wow that looks great I want it. Now do you agree that gold looks pretty? Well it doesnt matter. What you do know is that you also like pretty things. If you think gold is pretty is irrelevant.

What about tulips? Do you think they're pretty too?

porc

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: ?? on ??

Bitcoin itself has no value. Now you might say that Bitcoin can be transferred cheaply. Well that does not give the unit Bitcoin any value whatsoever. If I say "dadljf" can be transferred cheaply does that make "dadljf" valuable? Of course not!

But "dadljf" can't be transferred cheaply. It can be copied cheaply, but it can't be transferred cheaply. There's nothing stopping you from double spending it.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Now lets look at gold. What is golds value to humanity? Well it looks pretty. If I wear it people will say: Wow that looks great I want it. Now do you agree that gold looks pretty? Well it doesnt matter. What you do know is that you also like pretty things. If you think gold is pretty is irrelevant.

What if I think bitcoins are pretty?

Quote from: ?? on ??

Now you might ask how can we price the dollar? Well the dollar was backed by gold and gold was valuable. So you could price things in dollars.

What about the Euro?

Quote from: ?? on ??

Now why is inherent value of the dollar now? Well it is valuable because the government forces us to use it.

I've never been forced to use the dollar.

Quote from: ?? on ??

So if you exchange bitcoins for goods, you essentially have traded them for lottery tickets.

What's wrong with trading things for lottery tickets?

Read and comprehend before you start writing. 1) as I said the transfer part is irrelevant for bitcoins value. A bitcoin is not valuable just because I can transfer it cheaply. If I could transfer "adfadf" cheaply it would not make "adfadf" valuable. Get it? 2) Bitcoins are not real so they cant be pretty. If you like the logo the logo is not rare. Think before you spam! 3) "Ive never been forced to use the dollar" not worth replying to 4) whats wrong with trading things for lottery tickets? are you trolling... Huh

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 08, 2013, 06:38:52 PM

None of those things have objective value. Water and food have objective value to life. Things with objective value can be phased as a fact. For example I can say that mankind values water, I can not say that mankind values baseball cards or bitcoins.

Actually, read that article from which you quoted, the subjective theory of value does explain it in a simple and coherent way. Or, if you have time, read Carl Menger's Principles of Economics (it is not big), the book which gave rise to that theory... Water as well as air (and anything for that matter), they all have subjective value (if you're drowning the subjective value of water will be negative to you), that book explains such things pretty well...

sublime5447

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

No i cant say that mankind value art... I can only say that some of mankind values art.

If you really believe that bitcoin is a good store of value you have not been paying attention.

sublime5447

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 08, 2013, 04:57:56 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 27, 2013, 02:13:34 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on November 27, 2013, 02:06:42 PM

+1 it is obvious at this point that it is not currency, but a asset like art or baseball cards.. that is to say a shit asset with no objective measure of value.

Objective measure of value? What do you mean by this and is there any at all (with no concern for Bitcoin)?

I mean that the unit of measure is objectively valuable. Like gold, or joules of work.

Or art, or baseball cards, or bitcoins?

None of those things have objective value. Water and food have objective value to life. Things with objective value can be phased as a fact. For example I can say that mankind values water, I can not say that mankind values baseball cards or bitcoins.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 08, 2013, 06:16:07 PM

Quote from: deisik on December 08, 2013, 06:11:57 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 08, 2013, 05:43:35 PM

There is an objective theory of value and it has not been abandoned also there is a reason it is called a theory and not a law.
http://mises.org/daily/4907/

"The actual process through which subjective valuations lead to objective market prices is complicated. The average person doesn't need to understand it. However, everyone should be aware of the basic principles of modern value theory, as sketched in this article. Precisely because value is subjective, voluntary trades are win-win situations. At the same time, market prices are objective measures of wealth, and they allow firms to calculate whether they are using resources efficiently or not."

The theory you are referring to here is correctly called subjective theory of value. And it is accepted by most mainstream schools of economics. Actually, I meant exactly this theory when I wrote that there is no objective value in modern economics...

You obviously didnt read the article. Value is subjective to the individual... but objective to the market.

What you (they) name here as objective value is called price... I intentionally asked you what you meant by objective value. Your answer was that objective value is "the unit of measure is objectively valuable. Like gold, or joules of work"...

sublime5447

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

"One of the most subtle aspects of modern economic theory is the relation between subjective value and objective money prices."

sublime5447

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: deisik on December 08, 2013, 06:11:57 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 08, 2013, 05:43:35 PM

Quote from: deisik on December 08, 2013, 05:30:40 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 08, 2013, 04:57:56 PM

I mean that the unit of measure is objectively valuable. Like gold, or joules of work.

There is no place for objective value in modern economics in the sense you mean here. The theories claiming otherwise (for example, labor theory of value or intrinsic theory of value) have been abandoned by most economists for not being able to correctly describe real life economic phenomena...

There is an objective theory of value and it has not been abandoned also there is a reason it is called a theory and not a law.
http://mises.org/daily/4907/

"The actual process through which subjective valuations lead to objective market prices is complicated. The average person doesn't need to understand it. However, everyone should be aware of the basic principles of modern value theory, as sketched in this article. Precisely because value is subjective, voluntary trades are win-win situations. At the same time, market prices are objective measures of wealth, and they allow firms to calculate whether they are using resources efficiently or not."

The theory you are referring to here is correctly called subjective theory of value. And it is accepted by most mainstream schools of economics. Actually, I meant exactly this theory when I wrote that there is no objective value in modern economics...

You obviously didnt read the article. Value is subjective to the individual... but objective to the market.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 08, 2013, 05:43:35 PM

Quote from: deisik on December 08, 2013, 05:30:40 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 08, 2013, 04:57:56 PM

I mean that the unit of measure is objectively valuable. Like gold, or joules of work.

There is no place for objective value in modern economics in the sense you mean here. The theories claiming otherwise (for example, labor theory of value or intrinsic theory of value) have been abandoned by most economists for not being able to correctly describe real life economic phenomena...

There is an objective theory of value and it has not been abandoned also there is a reason it is called a theory and not a law.
http://mises.org/daily/4907/

"The actual process through which subjective valuations lead to objective market prices is complicated. The average person doesn't need to understand it. However, everyone should be aware of the basic principles of modern value theory, as sketched in this article. Precisely because value is subjective, voluntary trades are win-win situations. At the same time, market prices are objective measures of wealth, and they allow firms to calculate whether they are using resources efficiently or not."

The theory you are referring to here is correctly called subjective theory of value. And nowadays it is accepted by most mainstream schools of economics. Actually, I meant exactly this theory when I wrote in reply to your post that there is no objective value in modern economics...

sublime5447

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: deisik on December 08, 2013, 05:30:40 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on December 08, 2013, 04:57:56 PM

I mean that the unit of measure is objectively valuable. Like gold, or joules of work.

There is no place for objective value in modern economics in the sense you mean here. The theories claiming otherwise (for example, labor theory of value or intrinsic theory of value) have been abandoned by most economists for not being able to correctly describe real life economic phenomena...

There is an objective theory of value and it has not been abandoned also there is a reason it is called a theory and not a law.

http://mises.org/daily/4907/

"The actual process through which subjective valuations lead to objective market prices is complicated. The average person doesn't need to understand it. However, everyone should be aware of the basic principles of modern value theory, as sketched in this article. Precisely because value is subjective, voluntary trades are win-win situations. At the same time, market prices are objective measures of wealth, and they allow firms to calculate whether they are using resources efficiently or not."

Topic: Why bitcoin isn't currency. - page 3. (Read 21377 times)