3 ms·

Why does the issuer have anything to do with the question of whether something is a money?

by nickff 11y ago

ithkuil 11y ago
indeed the two terms are orthogonal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money Both are moneys
- nickff 11y ago
  Interestingly, Bitcoin does not fit neatly into either of Wikipedia's categories of money, as it is not supported by a government, and it is not based on a material.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Interestingly, Bitcoin does not fit neatly into either of Wikipedia's categories of money, Those two categories that were discussed upthreads are not exhaustive. Non-commodity, non-representative, non-government money existed long before bitcoin -- probably the best known fairly modern example is in Local Exchange Trading Systems and variations on those, which use units of accounts that (while they are often denominated in fiat currencies -- largely to simplify use and tax compliance for users) are neither the fiat currency they are denominated in (if they are denominated in one) nor backed by that currency in the sense that representational money is (in that no issuing entity promises to exchange them for the currency, even if the members of the system agree to treat them as equivalent to the fiat currency in exchange) -- and some variations intentionally divorce their units from the fiat currency entirely.
  - hajile 11y ago
    Bitcoin is most definitely based on a material, but with the advantage that the material used in its construction is more varied. The material for construction is whatever material required to create and power computers to perform the calculations that mint currency and transaction blocks. Government is "by the people for the people". If a set of people come together and agree to a currency, then you may firmly state that they have formed the minimal government needed to meet this requirement (even though I believe this requirement to be superfluous and arbitrary).
    - notahacker 11y ago
      If we use your tortuous redefinition of widely understood terms, then the post Bretton-Woods US dollar remains commodity money (some energy and material was used to make it, even though it can't be converted back into that energy and material at a fixed rate) and a bunch of kids trading Magic: The Gathering cards is a government (they might not have any power over anything, but hey... they're people and they've agreed to trade)
Turing_Machine 11y ago
Bitcoin is not legal tender (i.e., required to be accepted in payment for any debt). Government-issued money is. If someone owes you money you're required to accept payments in U.S. dollars (in the U.S., of course, and the same in other countries with their official government currencies). You're not required to accept Bitcoin.
- nickff 11y ago
  Legal Tender == Government Issued Money in Jurisdiction Legal Tender != Money
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    "Legal Tender == Government Issued Money in Jurisdiction" No. Legal Tender == "Anything that the government requires to be accepted in payment of debts" There's a lot of overlap between that and money issued by that specific government, but they are not the same thing. For instance, Spanish milled dollars ("pieces of eight") were legal tender in the United States until 1857. Your definition of "money" appears to be "anything of value" but that makes the term "money" meaningless. Money is stuff that accepted by everyone (or almost everyone) as payment for goods, services, and debts. Bitcoin is far from that.
    - nickff 11y ago
      >"There's a lot of overlap between that and money issued by that specific government, but they are not the same thing. For instance, Spanish milled dollars ("pieces of eight") were legal tender in the United States until 1857." You might notice that I am addressing current phenomena. gold and silver were once legal tender, as were clay tablets in various jurisdictions. For all practical purposes, governments currently only use money they control and issue as legal tender (though there are exceptions suchas Zimbabwe). >"Your definition of "money" appears to be "anything of value" but that makes the term "money" meaningless." This is not true. You can see the comments above and below where I specifically stated the criteria for a thing being money are that it is a "medium of exchange". I would not describe steel as a medium of exchange, but bitcoin definitely seems to be. >"Money is stuff that accepted by everyone (or almost everyone) as payment for goods, services, and debts." If this is your requirement, then why are currencies used in foreign countries by very small populations considered currency in the USA? There are probably more people using bitcoin in the USA (or the world for that matter) than there are people using Cuban, Chilean, Kazakhstan, or Israeli-issued currency.
fancyketchup 11y ago
Because that's how money is defined. At least, the first few hits on Google for "money definition" are: 1) <Google> "a current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively." 2) <Merriam-Webster> "something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment: as a : officially coined or stamped metal currency b : money of account c : paper money" 3) <Investopedia> "An officially-issued legal tender generally consisting of currency and coin. [...]"
- nickff 11y ago
  Bitcoin fits neatly into definitions 2 and 3, as well as most other definitions of money. With respect to definition 1, bitcoin is a current medium of exchange, and bitcoins can be printed out. Is the money in your online chequing/savings account any less of money because you do not possess a physical embodiment?
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    No, it does not. Definition 2 says generally acceptable. Bitcoin is not even close to that. If you believe otherwise, we could try an experiment. We both head off to the mall with identical shopping lists, me with a stack of $20 bills, you with a machine containing a Bitcoin wallet. Guess which of us will come back with more of the stuff on the list? It fails 3 because, as was already pointed out, Bitcoin is not recognized as legal tender by any government.
    - nickff 11y ago
      What if you were using a stack of Haitian gourde? Or a stack of Manx pound notes? I believe you would describe both as currencies. Guess which of us will come back with more of the stuff on the list? In fact, take a look at Wikipedia's list of currencies, and tell me which you would and wouldn't prefer over bitcoin at the mall.[1] edit: #3 does not specify who must "officially issue" it. As far as I can see, I could "officially issue" a money. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circulating_currencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circulating_currencies

Why does the issuer have anything to do with the question of whether something is a money?

by nickff 11y ago

Why does the issuer have anything to do with the question of whether something is a money?

indeed the two terms are orthogonal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money Both are moneys

nickff 11y ago
Interestingly, Bitcoin does not fit neatly into either of Wikipedia's categories of money, as it is not supported by a government, and it is not based on a material.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Interestingly, Bitcoin does not fit neatly into either of Wikipedia's categories of money, Those two categories that were discussed upthreads are not exhaustive. Non-commodity, non-representative, non-government money existed long before bitcoin -- probably the best known fairly modern example is in Local Exchange Trading Systems and variations on those, which use units of accounts that (while they are often denominated in fiat currencies -- largely to simplify use and tax compliance for users) are neither the fiat currency they are denominated in (if they are denominated in one) nor backed by that currency in the sense that representational money is (in that no issuing entity promises to exchange them for the currency, even if the members of the system agree to treat them as equivalent to the fiat currency in exchange) -- and some variations intentionally divorce their units from the fiat currency entirely.
- hajile 11y ago
  Bitcoin is most definitely based on a material, but with the advantage that the material used in its construction is more varied. The material for construction is whatever material required to create and power computers to perform the calculations that mint currency and transaction blocks. Government is "by the people for the people". If a set of people come together and agree to a currency, then you may firmly state that they have formed the minimal government needed to meet this requirement (even though I believe this requirement to be superfluous and arbitrary).
  - notahacker 11y ago
    If we use your tortuous redefinition of widely understood terms, then the post Bretton-Woods US dollar remains commodity money (some energy and material was used to make it, even though it can't be converted back into that energy and material at a fixed rate) and a bunch of kids trading Magic: The Gathering cards is a government (they might not have any power over anything, but hey... they're people and they've agreed to trade)

Turing_Machine 11y ago

Bitcoin is not legal tender (i.e., required to be accepted in payment for any debt). Government-issued money is. If someone owes you money you're required to accept payments in U.S. dollars (in the U.S., of course, and the same in other countries with their official government currencies). You're not required to accept Bitcoin.

nickff 11y ago
Legal Tender == Government Issued Money in Jurisdiction Legal Tender != Money
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  "Legal Tender == Government Issued Money in Jurisdiction" No. Legal Tender == "Anything that the government requires to be accepted in payment of debts" There's a lot of overlap between that and money issued by that specific government, but they are not the same thing. For instance, Spanish milled dollars ("pieces of eight") were legal tender in the United States until 1857. Your definition of "money" appears to be "anything of value" but that makes the term "money" meaningless. Money is stuff that accepted by everyone (or almost everyone) as payment for goods, services, and debts. Bitcoin is far from that.
  - nickff 11y ago
    >"There's a lot of overlap between that and money issued by that specific government, but they are not the same thing. For instance, Spanish milled dollars ("pieces of eight") were legal tender in the United States until 1857." You might notice that I am addressing current phenomena. gold and silver were once legal tender, as were clay tablets in various jurisdictions. For all practical purposes, governments currently only use money they control and issue as legal tender (though there are exceptions suchas Zimbabwe). >"Your definition of "money" appears to be "anything of value" but that makes the term "money" meaningless." This is not true. You can see the comments above and below where I specifically stated the criteria for a thing being money are that it is a "medium of exchange". I would not describe steel as a medium of exchange, but bitcoin definitely seems to be. >"Money is stuff that accepted by everyone (or almost everyone) as payment for goods, services, and debts." If this is your requirement, then why are currencies used in foreign countries by very small populations considered currency in the USA? There are probably more people using bitcoin in the USA (or the world for that matter) than there are people using Cuban, Chilean, Kazakhstan, or Israeli-issued currency.

fancyketchup 11y ago

Because that's how money is defined. At least, the first few hits on Google for "money definition" are: 1) <Google> "a current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively." 2) <Merriam-Webster> "something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment: as a : officially coined or stamped metal currency b : money of account c : paper money" 3) <Investopedia> "An officially-issued legal tender generally consisting of currency and coin. [...]"

nickff 11y ago
Bitcoin fits neatly into definitions 2 and 3, as well as most other definitions of money. With respect to definition 1, bitcoin is a current medium of exchange, and bitcoins can be printed out. Is the money in your online chequing/savings account any less of money because you do not possess a physical embodiment?
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  No, it does not. Definition 2 says generally acceptable. Bitcoin is not even close to that. If you believe otherwise, we could try an experiment. We both head off to the mall with identical shopping lists, me with a stack of $20 bills, you with a machine containing a Bitcoin wallet. Guess which of us will come back with more of the stuff on the list? It fails 3 because, as was already pointed out, Bitcoin is not recognized as legal tender by any government.
  - nickff 11y ago
    What if you were using a stack of Haitian gourde? Or a stack of Manx pound notes? I believe you would describe both as currencies. Guess which of us will come back with more of the stuff on the list? In fact, take a look at Wikipedia's list of currencies, and tell me which you would and wouldn't prefer over bitcoin at the mall.[1] edit: #3 does not specify who must "officially issue" it. As far as I can see, I could "officially issue" a money. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circulating_currencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circulating_currencies