Semantics semantics. Yawn.
It's also called e-mail even though it isn't literally mail.
Who cares? Really?
Topic: Will Bitcoins soon be outlawed everywhere if called a currency ? - page 3. (Read 6568 times)
I like to call bitcoin "a distributed time-stamp network". It just so happens that because of human action and economic forces that it acts as a currency, functionally.
Can Bitcoin be called currency by decree, as announced on bitcoin.org which seems to be kind of authoritative about Bitcoin and also usually the first place people are introduced to Bitcoin?
Would a more neutral stand point / opinion of bitcoin.org not be more suitable?
Even though it is used as a medium of exchange in the same sense as marbles on the playground, or corporate perks, loyalty points, any liquid barter good, etc. etc.
I like to call bitcoin "a distributed time-stamp network". It just so happens that because of human action and economic forces that it acts as a currency, functionally.
The poster's comments are solely his opinion, in a forum like this we do not need to give you permission to have your own opinion - it's a requirement. We are not rendering any service of any kind - but expressing individual opinion. This is a universal disclaimer for all posts of Cloud9 made on this forum.
Bitcoin P2P Crypto-Commodity
OK, so Bitcoin is a medium of exchange. No one can question that. And it seems a very effective medium of exchange.
But is it a currency? Is it money, backed by a store of value to be redeemable from the issuer giving the issuer no option not to accept it to be redeemed? Or is it a secure accounting utility with a user allocated value due to market forces?
Can a Bitcoin site (bitcoin.org) decide individually whether to call Bitcoin a currency or not - because it has a decentralized nature?
Can a Bitcoin site (mtgox.com) decide individually whether to call Bitcoin an internet commodity or not - because it has a decentralized nature?
Can every Bitcoin holder, merchant, trader, etc. decide individually how they interpret Bitcoins?
Does Bitcoin allow for modern day barter transactions between the fairly secure Bitcoin Accounting Utility and a good/service?
See this legal ideas with regards to barter exchange as opposed to virtual currency (Scroll down to the end to Matthew C 's answer):
http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-legal/corporate-law/finance-securities-law/LAW_COR_FSL/46277-12027705
Can Bitcoin be interpreted as an internet utility which can be bartered for any number of goods/services/other?
Is bitcoin.org 's blatant misrepresentation of Bitcoin not misleading?
"P2P Virtual Currency
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer currency. Peer-to-peer means that no central authority issues new money or tracks transactions. These tasks are managed collectively by the network."
"... no central authority ... tracks transactions ... " - Can anyone not track transactions on the blockchain (provided Bitcoin was not laundered - and laundering Bitcoin would be illegal)?
P2P Virtual Currency - Does a currency not require a store of value backing it?
Does Bitcoin's only value derive from its secure, transferable utility value as an internet commodity described by MtGox? Have we bought an internet commodity that we are bartering for goods/services/other as a medium of exchange? Or have we been issued a virtual currency with a backed store of value - to be redeemed, without option not to accept, from the backing entity on demand?
Would "P2P Crypto Accounting Utility" not be a more aptly description? Would it not be less incriminating to bitcoin.org 's author who identifies his Bitcoins as currency - even though it is not backed, or redeemable from an entity, without option not to accept?
Bitcoin P2P Crypto-Commodity
OK, so Bitcoin is a medium of exchange. No one can question that. And it seems a very effective medium of exchange.
But is it a currency? Is it money, backed by a store of value to be redeemable from the issuer giving the issuer no option not to accept it to be redeemed? Or is it a secure accounting utility with a user allocated value due to market forces?
Can a Bitcoin site (bitcoin.org) decide individually whether to call Bitcoin a currency or not - because it has a decentralized nature?
Can a Bitcoin site (mtgox.com) decide individually whether to call Bitcoin an internet commodity or not - because it has a decentralized nature?
Can every Bitcoin holder, merchant, trader, etc. decide individually how they interpret Bitcoins?
Does Bitcoin allow for modern day barter transactions between the fairly secure Bitcoin Accounting Utility and a good/service?
See this legal ideas with regards to barter exchange as opposed to virtual currency (Scroll down to the end to Matthew C 's answer):
http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-legal/corporate-law/finance-securities-law/LAW_COR_FSL/46277-12027705
Can Bitcoin be interpreted as an internet utility which can be bartered for any number of goods/services/other?
Is bitcoin.org 's blatant misrepresentation of Bitcoin not misleading?
"P2P Virtual Currency
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer currency. Peer-to-peer means that no central authority issues new money or tracks transactions. These tasks are managed collectively by the network."
"... no central authority ... tracks transactions ... " - Can anyone not track transactions on the blockchain (provided Bitcoin was not laundered - and laundering Bitcoin would be illegal)?
P2P Virtual Currency - Does a currency not require a store of value backing it?
Does Bitcoin's only value derive from its secure, transferable utility value as an internet commodity described by MtGox? Have we bought an internet commodity that we are bartering for goods/services/other as a medium of exchange? Or have we been issued a virtual currency with a backed store of value - to be redeemed, without option not to accept, from the backing entity on demand?
Would "P2P Crypto Accounting Utility" not be a more aptly description? Would it not be less incriminating to bitcoin.org 's author who identifies his Bitcoins as currency - even though it is not backed, or redeemable from an entity, without option not to accept?
Jump to: