3 ms·

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/

by 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)

by ithkuil 11y ago

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)