Bitcoins

sabretoothtigger

lvader wrote: »

Silver had failed miserably to store wealth, so you seem to agree it isn't money.

Even in recent times thats not the case. USA dimes issued pre nixon buy the same amount of petrol now as they did back then.

I dont especially care if anyone likes shiny metal but nobody at all mainstream seems to object when we commonly state the oppisite of what has occured reality, its a strange ongoing situation

http://youtu.be/DIzAaY2Jm-s?t=3m15s
'there is no silver bullet for rising gas prices' 100% wrong, its almost comedy

Satoshi

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

Even in recent times thats not the case. USA dimes issued pre nixon buy the same amount of petrol now as they did back then.

I dont especially care if anyone likes shiny metal but nobody at all mainstream seems to object when we commonly state the oppisite of what has occured reality, its a strange ongoing situation

http://youtu.be/DIzAaY2Jm-s?t=3m15s
'there is no silver bullet for rising gas prices' 100% wrong, its almost comedy

Exactly right, gold and silver do hold value over long periods of time. But they still go from overvalued to undervalued and back again, but they can never go to nothing like every currency eventually does. Bitcoin and all unbacked crypto is currency only gold and silver are money.

JohnRo

Satoshi you speak with such authority... two days ago you were struggling with division not being the same as multiplication. Money is a concept that lives only the in the mind of humans (barring intelligent life elsewhere in the universe).

Gold and silver are nothing more than elements that have been able to just about carry that concept through the centuries. Crypto will replace them for the most part in the purpose of transacting and therefore storing value, at some stage. That's because they're able to carry the concept at least as well and in everyday use much better, that doesn't mean gold and silver won't still retain their sentimental and industrial value.

The big question is how crypto currency is going to break out and find its place in a world we live in which most seem to willingly accept, ruled by privilege, corruption and greed. It's whether something as neutral and equitable as a bitcoin protocol (or some other successor) will ever be allowed to gain so much traction that it starts to threaten the pyramid money schemes controlled by already established cleptocrats.

Jegersmart

Satoshi wrote: »

Not just one definition. There are exact definitions of money and currency that can not be argued against for all of history.

But to really answer the question what is money you first need to understand the difference between money and currency. The official definitions of currency and money are:
Currency must be a medium of exchange so we have to be able to buy and sell things with it. It has to be a unit of account, so one gram or unit is equal to one gram or unit. It has to be portable so not to large or heavy. It has to be divisible which means you can make change. Durable which means it has to has to last and not dissolve in water or evaporate or degrade in near extreme temperatures. And then something called fungible. Fungible means that each unit is interchangeable so the unit in your pocket buys the same as the unit in my pocket.
Money has to be all these things plus it has to be a store of value over long periods of time. So if you only remember one thing today remember that lots of things have been currency but only two things have ever been money. Nothing else meets ALL of these requirements and is a long term store of value only gold and silver are money in and of themselves. There are many things that are a long term store of value (like land for instance) but they do not meet the other requirements land is not portable. Diamonds some say are a good long term store of value and very portable but not fungible because no two grams or units of diamonds are worth exactly the same.
Salt and tobacco as we have said meet most of the requirements of currency but are not durable even if they arguably do hold their value over long periods of time like money does, gold and silver. Things like this do hold their value over long periods of time but what good is this if they are not durable. Just because the value of something lasts the thing itself may not. Even modern digital currencies like Bit coin may well meet all or many of the requirements of currency but can not be a long term store of value because it is dependent on many things like electricity and Internet being reliable and not being hacked or messed with. Bit coins can not have any intrinsic value in themselves because they do not exist, they are virtual currencies. They come and go. Bit coins may be limited in quantity but they are not limited in competing digital competitors so the number of bit coin lookalikes could be infinite. Bit coins and suchlike are only a medium of exchange they don't have any use in themselves other than a virtual currency, so can not be a long term store of value. They can not be money in and of themselves like for example gold and silver coins because Bit coins and other virtual currencies are digital and not tangible they are not backed by anything just like fiat currencies from governments.
It is worth repeating, Many things have been used as currency but nothing has met all these requirements and been a lasting store of value over long periods of time, only gold and silver are money. The key point to remember is - Only gold and silver are money, EVERYTHING else that has been used as a medium of exchange is just currency.
Currency
medium of exchange unit of account
portable
divisible
durable
fungible
slowly becomes worth less
Money all the above except slowly becomes worth-less instead - STORE OF VALUE over long periods of time

Bit coin is currency not money.

Interesting. I find that most of my fiat-based "money" is also 99% virtual and is also dependent on electricity if not also internet.

I also find it interesting that the vast majority view new types of currency with extreme suspicion when at the same time most people know that fiat-based currencies are manipulated and controlled as well devalued and debt-bearing to the detriment of taxpayers globally.

I don't really know or care whether Bitcoin will survive in the long-term but the *concept* of Bitcoin is extremely interesting and should foster a real evolution of some of these tools that we can use without paying exorbitant fees either directly or indirectly to the financial institutions who are legally permitted to exist as parasites on society through the legislation of an ignorant and corrupt"government".

Sounds militant perhaps, but I welcome new ideas such as this - but not necessarily as any kind of investment - rather as a potential way to change the systems that we have who bleed us dry.

imho
J

Jegersmart

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

In the past :laugh:

This time its different, famous last words. Every time its the same, is closer to the truth most of the time

Gold is a unique element with various values of use in that, it relies on no one for its intrinsic worth. In addition people may like it as jewellery but thats only as a bonus

Bitcoin is reliant on its network pretty much, it could carry on to some extent but mostly its worth is in the instant transaction where gold is centuries in its indestructibility.

Big problem, bitcoin is useless by itself. One coin attempts to discover new prime numbers I believe ? Its not impossible but mostly we are talking about digital fiat.
Namecoin tries to be of use as a alternate DNS structure (internet roadmap) so this dual use could be of some backing perhaps.
BTC has none, so it a ship with holes in it. If clever they can continually be bailed out by its high applicability (small internet cash), money velocity, efficiency whatever works.

However its default bias is to sink to davy jones locker.
Especially under the weight of overwhelming and consistent competition due to its open source as well as 'real world' exchanges

So gold, solid base worth. Bulky, variable bonus use. BTC no base worth but with massive bonus value attributed by transferability

Interesting.

Gold is almost completely useless apart from limited industrial uses as well as electronics.

The main problem that gold has is that its "value" is purely based on historical sentiment. You cannot eat gold, use it as fuel or build anything practical out of it. In most cases, owners of physical gold monitor it's "worth" electronically. Gold is not accepted as cash or currency in many places, and of course using it as a currency is extremely challenging unless you have a portable smelter and digital scales with you (and a lot of time).

Gold has "value" through sentiment only - and I can assure you that sentiment can change pretty quickly. In addition, as gold no longer backs any fiat currency to any degree, there would be no loss as such in that respect should such sentiment change.

The upside is of course that governments have spent trillions of USD/GBP etc of *our money* to acquire reserves so are very unlikely to let such a change of sentiment happen - even despite the fact that they have confiscated gold stores before and will probably do so again IF the metal maintains any relevance. Think about it, gold has been stolen by governments who used our money to acquire their own reserves in the first place! The U.S. did so in the 70's IIRC, but still people acquire and store gold? lol..............

In terms of CC's (crypto currencies, Bitcoin or otherwise) - I think they will change the way we think and trade over time. Do we need a "store of value" such as gold? Well, historic sentiment would certainly seem to confirm this, however in an increasingly digital world I would not be sitting with a useless shiny metal in my safe personally.

Only time will tell.

J

grey_gym_sock

Satoshi wrote: »

only gold and silver are money.

it doesn't matter how many times you say this. it won't become true.

just try reading the entry for "money" in any decent dictionary. it has lots of overlapping, but not entirely consistent meanings. just like most common words.

according to many of those meanings, gold and silver are (at the moment) neither money nor currency. try walking into any hotel or restaurant in the UK and offering to pay in gold or silver. good luck with that.

BoracicLint

Jegersmart wrote: »

Gold has "value" through sentiment only - and I can assure you that sentiment can change pretty quickly.

But you can't argue with several thousand years of history...surely gold has cemented its 'worth' as a commodity. I don't see sentiment changing anytime soon.

And what about supply and demand? The gold price is currently trading very close to the cost of production, gold mines are already risking closure as the supply is being restricted by the low gold price making their operations non-profitable.

As this supply continues to stagnate, the price of gold will inevitably rise due to continued demand.

Jegersmart

BoracicLint wrote: »

But you can't argue with several thousand years of history...surely gold has cemented its 'worth' as a commodity. I don't see sentiment changing anytime soon.

And what about supply and demand? The gold price is currently trading very close to the cost of production, gold mines are already risking closure as the supply is being restricted by the low gold price making their operations non-profitable.

As this supply continues to stagnate, the price of gold will inevitably rise due to continued demand.

How can I argue? Of course I can, the world has changed more in the last 100 years than the previous 3000 in many ways. Gold is entirely useless to the man on the street. I am debating whether gold will become less relevant going forward, and yes I think it will. Just because people in the old days liked a shiny metal, doesn't mean that in a digital age that this sentiment will remain. Why would it? Discuss

J

Jegersmart

And to your point on supply and demand, supply is potentially challenged - I am talking about the demand side - I am debating on the possibility that this will be eroded by the erosion of sentiment.....

J

BoracicLint

Jegersmart wrote: »

How can I argue? Of course I can, the world has changed more in the last 100 years than the previous 3000 in many ways. Gold is entirely useless to the man on the street. I am debating whether gold will become less relevant going forward, and yes I think it will. Just because people in the old days liked a shiny metal, doesn't mean that in a digital age that this sentiment will remain. Why would it? Discuss

J

Of course I can't deny the last 100 years have seen some significant technological achievements, but I still think that the possesion of a tangible store of value such as gold is preferable for many.

Don't get me wrong, the Bitcoin protocol is an amazing concept, but with it being digital, it becomes exposed to a whole host of risks such as DDoS attacks, double-spend, hacking etc.. The only way for someone to mitigate against these digital risks is to keep their digital fortune in hard-copy, in which case it reverts to a tangible model much more similar to gold.

Taking gold's utility out of the equation (as I'm sure we can all agree that the demand for its noble, high conductivity, virtually indestructible properties will remain) then yes, sentiment towards Gold as a store of value alone may well subside...but I think this will take several generations. It's still a useful commodity, of finite resource which cannot be created or destroyed by any one.