5 ms·

Those 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

Those 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Bitcoin 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 ago
      No, 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
        DagAgren 7y ago
        It is not that it is USED by a country. It is that it is an INTEGRAL PART of the country's economic policy. The country can, as part of managing its economy, also manage the currency. Bitcoin is not managed this way. It has rules set in stone it follows entirely on its own, without external input. This means it exists in isolation, unaffected by whatever economic activity takes place around it. This is entirely unlike a national currency.
        thebean11 7y ago
        > The country can, as part of managing its economy, also manage the currency. You think a requirement for currency is that the country using it can manage it? What about all the non-US countries that use the dollar? They absolutely cannot manage their currency. What about in the past when the US and others were on the gold standard? There are a million counterexamples. And again, let me reiterate (because it seems we're drifting away from the point here) that we were originally discussing whether bitcoin was "negative sum". I'm telling you that if it has utility (like any other currency) there is value being created. > This means it exists in isolation, unaffected by whatever economic activity takes place around it. I don't really know what that means, everything is subject to outside economic forces.
        7y ago

Those 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Bitcoin 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 ago
    No, 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
      - DagAgren 7y ago
        It is not that it is USED by a country. It is that it is an INTEGRAL PART of the country's economic policy. The country can, as part of managing its economy, also manage the currency. Bitcoin is not managed this way. It has rules set in stone it follows entirely on its own, without external input. This means it exists in isolation, unaffected by whatever economic activity takes place around it. This is entirely unlike a national currency.
        thebean11 7y ago
        > The country can, as part of managing its economy, also manage the currency. You think a requirement for currency is that the country using it can manage it? What about all the non-US countries that use the dollar? They absolutely cannot manage their currency. What about in the past when the US and others were on the gold standard? There are a million counterexamples. And again, let me reiterate (because it seems we're drifting away from the point here) that we were originally discussing whether bitcoin was "negative sum". I'm telling you that if it has utility (like any other currency) there is value being created. > This means it exists in isolation, unaffected by whatever economic activity takes place around it. I don't really know what that means, everything is subject to outside economic forces.
        7y ago