3 ms·

It might be useful to explain the difference between 'non-currencies' and 'currencies'. Regular currencies are also imagined-up things which have only a few pr

It might be useful to explain the difference between 'non-currencies' and 'currencies'. Regular currencies are also imagined-up things which have only a few practical differences. The one difference is usually various government contracts/taxes are only payable with specific currencies and therefore have value because they are 'needed' to pay obligations.

geezerjay 9y ago
> Regular currencies are also imagined-up things which have only a few practical differences. That's not true. A currency is designed to serve as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and and a store of value. These so called "cryptocurrencies" fail to meet the basic requirements of any currency as they are designed specifically to inflate their value in speculative markets while serving absolutely no purpose of being either a unit of account or even a medium of exchange. In fact, beans are far better currencies as these so called "cryptocurrencies" as their value are far more stable and are free from speculative drives such as the one discussed in this thread. Additionally, real currencies have inherent value by being adopted as the official and exclusive medium to pay taxes to governments.
- PeterStuer 9y ago
  >That's not true. A currency is designed to serve as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and and a store of value. And yet, after all the designing (a post factum attribution more likely), they're still just numbers on ledgers.
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    > And yet, after all the designing (a post factum attribution more likely), they're still just numbers on ledgers. No, they really are not, and that's a very ignorant thing to say. Mere numbers on a ledger don't have central banks dedicated to implement economic policies to actively stabilise their value nor do they get accepted by state institutions as official and in some cases exclusive form of payment.
- joncrocks 9y ago
  Does what something is 'designed' for really make a difference? Is that the thing that makes something a currency or not? Or is it some other thing that makes something a currency? The value of some currencies have fluctuated in their value wildly in the past, so stability isn't a some intrinsic thing that marks a currency. I'm not say I don't agree that the word 'cryptocurrency" isn't banded about far too much, but saying "They aren't currencies" should be supported by some kind of description of what makes a currency a currency otherwise we can tie ourselves in knots. Saying that the 'design' or 'stability' define whether something is a currency as it is really just using proxies (that might work most of the time) for what makes something a currency. I think.

geezerjay 9y ago

> Regular currencies are also imagined-up things which have only a few practical differences. That's not true. A currency is designed to serve as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and and a store of value. These so called "cryptocurrencies" fail to meet the basic requirements of any currency as they are designed specifically to inflate their value in speculative markets while serving absolutely no purpose of being either a unit of account or even a medium of exchange. In fact, beans are far better currencies as these so called "cryptocurrencies" as their value are far more stable and are free from speculative drives such as the one discussed in this thread. Additionally, real currencies have inherent value by being adopted as the official and exclusive medium to pay taxes to governments.

PeterStuer 9y ago
>That's not true. A currency is designed to serve as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and and a store of value. And yet, after all the designing (a post factum attribution more likely), they're still just numbers on ledgers.
- geezerjay 9y ago
  > And yet, after all the designing (a post factum attribution more likely), they're still just numbers on ledgers. No, they really are not, and that's a very ignorant thing to say. Mere numbers on a ledger don't have central banks dedicated to implement economic policies to actively stabilise their value nor do they get accepted by state institutions as official and in some cases exclusive form of payment.
joncrocks 9y ago
Does what something is 'designed' for really make a difference? Is that the thing that makes something a currency or not? Or is it some other thing that makes something a currency? The value of some currencies have fluctuated in their value wildly in the past, so stability isn't a some intrinsic thing that marks a currency. I'm not say I don't agree that the word 'cryptocurrency" isn't banded about far too much, but saying "They aren't currencies" should be supported by some kind of description of what makes a currency a currency otherwise we can tie ourselves in knots. Saying that the 'design' or 'stability' define whether something is a currency as it is really just using proxies (that might work most of the time) for what makes something a currency. I think.