4 ms·
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "the economic system built around bitcoin", I thought you meant "the economy if bitcoin were adopted would be negative s
by thebean11 7y ago
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "the economic system built around bitcoin", I thought you meant "the economy if bitcoin were adopted would be negative sum".
Now that I understand your point: how is this different from any currency? Currencies are a medium of exchange, by definition they don't have intrinsic value. The value is defined by what you can buy. They are simply a convenient accounting system for value, not the source of value.
How does your argument not apply to every other currency?
- DagAgren 7y agoCurrencies do not exist in a vacuum, like bitcoin, it is an instrument of an entire country's economy. There is wealth created inside that economy, unlike bitcoin.
- thebean11 7y agoRight that's exactly my point, you're critiquing bitcoin as an alternative to the "economy" part, but that's not something it has ever claimed to be. It's an alternative for the "currency" part.
- DagAgren 7y agoThose are not two different things. They are one and the same, in a regular currency. Bitcoin implements only half of it, and pretends this is just as good. It is not. It is just gambling.
- thebean11 7y ago> Bitcoin implements only half of it What does that mean? That the dollar implements the entirety of the economy? No currency "creates value" I understand what you mean by saying bitcoin is zero sum, but I'm asking for an explanation of how that's any different (for example how is the dollar NOT zero sum)? I don't think you've explained what, in your opinion, is the differentiating characteristic here.
- DagAgren 7y agoThe dollar does not exist on its own. It is an integral part of the US economy. The two can not be separated. The dollar represents, in some sense, a unit of the US economy. Bitcoin has nothing like this.
- thebean11 7y agoBitcoin could theoretically become an integral part of some economy (or a smaller part of every economy). Then by your standards it would no longer have a problem? It seems like a catch 22 you're presenting. It's a bad currency because nobody uses it, and nobody uses it because it's a bad currency. To me that's kind of a circular argument, and the same argument could be made about any early-stage network (the internet, facebook, etc.)
- DagAgren 7y agoNo, this can not be changed. It doesn't matter how many people use it or not. It very deliberately, by design and implementation, does not represent anything at all. This would not change even if an entire country used it (putting aside that it is not technically capable of doing so).
- thebean11 7y ago> This would not change even if an entire country used it (putting aside that it is not technically capable of doing so). This is the point you need to expand on. When I asked what the difference between bitcoin and the dollar is, you said the defining difference is that the dollar is used by a country. So if that's not the difference what is? If bitcoin was adopted, would it not also represent a unit of the economy? Does your argument boil down to "it's not officially backed by country therefor it cannot serve as a medium of exchange"? If so I ask you WHY that prevents it from being a medium of exchange? I really don't follow the "negative sum" argument. It seems like that applies to every currency, so it's kind of an irrelevant point
- 7y ago