Topic: Why bitcoin isn't currency. - page 9. (Read 21377 times)

dont know, realy font know

No that is not the point. And I am not that rich, but living in a poor country makes me feel rich. (note living in a poor country has some efficiency tradeoffs)

The point is that unless our coin's design distributes the coins widely, we can't get the economy-of-scale to overcome the chicken-and-egg barrier and become a currency.

The merchants accepting Bitcoin are targeting our coin's demographics, which is no where near the range of merchants of the demographics of the masses-at-large.

OK we got the point, you are rich and u have your workers!

Would you like to place a bet of sufficient size, then I will bring my Asian worker online so I can collect the BTC from you?

Put up or shut up.

And you just try that. Because I actually put my worker in front a computer a couple of months ago and tried all those different online jobs. Sorry unless they have a high skill such as writing, those online jobs actually pay less by the time you subtract all the overhead and time to find contracts for work. And they are incredibly boring, tedious, and monotonous and quite hard on the eyes and body. My worker would much rather cook, clean, and be outdoors with the nature, fresh, and the beautiful views overlooking the mountain.

Money doesn't always equal happiness. It is the lifestyle that equals happiness.

You don't seem to comprehend basic math. There are 6 billion unskilled people in the world, and an oversupply of manufacturing. There is coming a massive poverty to the world. Our only way out is to raise the high-tech skills of the people. But how can we raise the hitech skills of people such as goldbugs who can't even fathom simple algebra?

I normally speak from having immense experience. I have lived all over the world, I have tried most everything there is to try.

Most people pontificate from their armchair and think they are more knowledgeable than me. Hahaha.

I am not confused about what I can use to pay people. Are you?

The issue is not having a payment processor, but rather that the things the workers want to buy downstream don't accept Bitcoin, e.g. the fish vendor standing with her bucket of fish on the street corner.

The only way you get that massive scale is by distributing the currency widely, something Bitcoin can never do.

Can you cut the grass on my lawn with a pair of scissors for $3 per day? One of my workers does in this third-world country.

Note the lawnmower costs more than his/her annual salary so it doesn't make economic sense to buy one.

the economic laws can change, and they wil adopt BTC liked it or not

You appear to be confused by the separate but related concepts of "currency" and "legal tender."

Thats because your workers doesn't value Bitcoin, you can pay me Bitcoin if I am your worker ....

It isn't a fucking currency because if I give it to my workers, they said thanks but then ask when I will pay their salary.

Currency isn't buying drugs on CrimeSite nor buying domains on CheapName, that is just a gimick.

Bitcoin can be a currency if one country choose to, but if it has a way to charge back to reduce any hackers would be good. You know bank get hacked all the time...

This whole conceptual construct is faulty, but just to humor this "unit" nonsense that has nothing to do with anything but looking up something in the dictionary then making stuff up --

A Bitcoin is a unit of what you can transact that the network will accept as legitimate and incorporate into the blockchain.

Yes yes how they arent, it is only a big dream but who knows

Ok, just looked a little above...


Lol

Perhaps they / we will, yes.  Perhaps not.
If such problems eventually arise, perhaps it will be replaced by something better?
We have come only a little way on this adventure, there is far to go. 

This fear may be validated.  What will you do in the mean time?
The question is not just whether Bitcoin is better than what we may imagine, but more importantly, whether it is better than what we have had before.


Bilbo thought to turn back complaining that he has no hat, handkerchief, or money. Dwalin tells him that he "will have to manage without pocket-handkerchiefs, and a good many other things."

IT is now now, but it will be for sure

Your an idiot. 

Did the dollar ever fit your definition? From your "no longer" statement, I assume you'd say that it did under the gold standard. But that's just a few applications of the transitive property away from the same issue... What's an ounce of gold? Ok, it's 8.53x10^22 gold atoms. Great, what's a gold atom...79 protons, 117 neutrons. What's a proton? Some up-quarks, down-quarks...etc. They're all mental approximations/constructs. We've just found them to be incredibly useful. Bitcoin is no different. The abstract construct of there being 2.1 quadrillion units, defined as a mining algorithm, is just fine. Quarks are definable by math as well. Physics, hence reality, essentially reduces to math.

But that's all semantics. However, if you want to make your argument, you have to pay attention to semantics, since that's what your argument is.

It sounds like your issue is with the lack of physicality of bitcoin. You'd be satisfied if we were able to define bitcoin in terms of something physical (nevermind my argument above that that also becomes abstract at its core). If that's the issue, fine. I say it's irrelevant.

Various things and systems have been used for exchange throughout human history. What does the job well in a given time period for a given culture has varied tremendously. Bitcoin dramatically reduces the friction of exchange in modern times, and that meets the fundamental purpose of money, and practical definitions of currency, perfectly.

Lol, I reread what the OP wrote on the first page, it is garbage, simply put mildly speaking