5 ms·
They're not fictional possessions--millions of people have them, in the real world. They can be transacted, and exchanged for real-world goods and services.
by kinghajj 7y ago
They're not fictional possessions--millions of people have them, in the real world. They can be transacted, and exchanged for real-world goods and services.
- astrodust 7y agoIt's not 2014 any more.
- kinghajj 7y agoNo, it's 2019: XBT is around $11.8k, more financial instruments like futures, trusts, and ETFs are coming online, and LN adoption keeps growing (Bitstamp just launched their first LN node!)
- astrodust 7y agoI'm sure Tether and 100:1 margin trading has nothing to do with the price spike.
- fredfoobar 7y agoYup, I'm sure of it too. I don't get these guys who keep claiming this Tether fakenews.
- astrodust 7y agoNothing another dozen indictments and the resulting discovery can't prove yet again.
- diminoten 7y agoIf they're not fictional, show me a Bitcoin.
- dragonwriter 7y agoThere's a difference between fictional and intangible. A Waterdhavian gold dragon is a fictional possession (though, in concept, tangible). A Bitcoin is intangible, but nonfictional.
- diminoten 7y agoThat's why context matters, and realizing that in this context "fictional" means "intangible" (kind of, in this case "fictional" more than just digital) would be important if we were having this conversation honestly. This isn't an honest conversation though, because people are getting overly defensive about BTC.
- fastball 7y agoI like how you've decided that people are being overly defensive about BTC, rather than the other side of the proverbial coin: people are being over-critical. Person A saying "this thing is totally a waste" and Person B responding "actually, no it's not, for these reasons" is not an example of Person B being "overly defensive". Especially when B provides rationalizations of their position and A does not. And in no context I've ever seen does "fictional" mean "intangible". Even if it did, this would not be one of those times, as the context of the OC clearly indicates being dismissive of the currency as a whole, not just pointing out that it is intangible.
- DenisM 7y agoHow would you classify "stocks" in a Ponzi scheme? They too can be transacted, up to a point. Is that sufficient to make them non-fictional?
- fastball 7y agoSomething can be real (and not fictional) without having the value people imagine it to have. For example, I don't know if you own any old jewelry with diamonds in it, but if you do, you can probably assume that it is worth less than you paid for it, given that diamonds can now be artificially produced with clarity / hardness / etc that parallels "natural" diamonds, and a big part of a diamond's price has historically been it's relative scarcity in nature.