3 ms·

This is splitting hairs. Sure, everything can be used as a currency. Gold, bitcoins, fiat cash, snackpack puddings at lunch, seashells, etc. Then there are q

This is splitting hairs. Sure, everything can be used as a currency. Gold, bitcoins, fiat cash, snackpack puddings at lunch, seashells, etc. Then there are qualities that make something a good currency, by modern standards. As others have pointed out with links to examples, being deflationary, irreversible, volatile, and having low coverage with unpredictable fees are traits that make Bitcoin not a very good currency. Yes you can hand wave about future promises to be a great currency or chore tokens, but that does not reflect the utility of Bitcoin right now as a good currency.

SilasX 6y ago
I wasn't addressing whether bitcoin is or isn't a good currency. I was explaining why I downnvoted a comment that argued to that effect. Are you saying that every comment whose conclusion happens to right should be upvoted (or at least not downvoted)? If so, that would be a mistake. If you present bad reasons to believe correct conclusion X, you are hurting the discussion just as much as if you argued for not-X. And the reasons given in that comment (fixed quantity implies zero-sum utility over such transactions) are bad reasons to believe bitcoin is not a currency. Furthermore, there's still the fact that the commenter was latching onto a minor, tangential point and blowing it up to be the focus of the discussion. That's also an anti-pattern. If you want to argue that bitcoin makes for a bad currency, great! I would just encourage you to bring it up in a place where it's actually relevant to the article or comment it replies to, and do so with reasons that pass simple sanity checks.
- tekknik 6y ago
  So you’re saying someone can make the comment stating it’s a currency but it can’t be refuted? Where then should this statement be discussed if not here? Should we start another thread to discuss the this specific comment and it’s reply? Further, the entire downvote system harms the conversation more as people leave or sit out conversations due to their voice being stifled by some random(s) on the internet. Lastly why is medium a bad choice? Legitimate articles have to be posted somewhere and most people don’t want to go through the trouble of setting up their own domain. If there were a custom domain in front of that medium link would you have cared?
  - SilasX 6y ago
    >So you’re saying someone can make the comment stating it’s a currency but it can’t be refuted? Where then should this statement be discussed if not here? Should we start another thread to discuss the this specific comment and it’s reply? No, I'm saying that if the bit about it being a currency was incidental to the core point, then you shouldn't turn the thread into a debate about whether it is a currency; you should use replies there to address what was the commenter's core point, which began as explanation of the mechanics of the halving. Are you seriously saying that that there are no other comments on this discussion where it's actually relevant that Bitcoin is a currency and you can't bear to take those discussions there? >Further, the entire downvote system harms the conversation more as people leave or sit out conversations due to their voice being stifled by some random(s) on the internet The comment also gave a very bad reason to believe that bitcoin isn't a currency, and yes, that was polluting the discussion. No one has yet stood up to defend that argument, so I think I was on the right track. >Lastly why is medium a bad choice? Because it's an annoying site with every UX and privacy anti-pattern. ("Excuse the interruption...") But again, that was just on top of the two worse sins -- changing the core discussion, and presenting a poorly thought reason.
    - wpietri 6y ago
      If you want to be Big Mad at somebody, pick the guy who introduced the notion of bitcoin-as-currency as part of the explanation. But once that was introduced as part of how to value it, it was reasonable to reply to it.
      - tekknik 6y ago
        This, thanks.

SilasX 6y ago

I wasn't addressing whether bitcoin is or isn't a good currency. I was explaining why I downnvoted a comment that argued to that effect. Are you saying that every comment whose conclusion happens to right should be upvoted (or at least not downvoted)? If so, that would be a mistake. If you present bad reasons to believe correct conclusion X, you are hurting the discussion just as much as if you argued for not-X. And the reasons given in that comment (fixed quantity implies zero-sum utility over such transactions) are bad reasons to believe bitcoin is not a currency. Furthermore, there's still the fact that the commenter was latching onto a minor, tangential point and blowing it up to be the focus of the discussion. That's also an anti-pattern. If you want to argue that bitcoin makes for a bad currency, great! I would just encourage you to bring it up in a place where it's actually relevant to the article or comment it replies to, and do so with reasons that pass simple sanity checks.

tekknik 6y ago
So you’re saying someone can make the comment stating it’s a currency but it can’t be refuted? Where then should this statement be discussed if not here? Should we start another thread to discuss the this specific comment and it’s reply? Further, the entire downvote system harms the conversation more as people leave or sit out conversations due to their voice being stifled by some random(s) on the internet. Lastly why is medium a bad choice? Legitimate articles have to be posted somewhere and most people don’t want to go through the trouble of setting up their own domain. If there were a custom domain in front of that medium link would you have cared?
- SilasX 6y ago
  >So you’re saying someone can make the comment stating it’s a currency but it can’t be refuted? Where then should this statement be discussed if not here? Should we start another thread to discuss the this specific comment and it’s reply? No, I'm saying that if the bit about it being a currency was incidental to the core point, then you shouldn't turn the thread into a debate about whether it is a currency; you should use replies there to address what was the commenter's core point, which began as explanation of the mechanics of the halving. Are you seriously saying that that there are no other comments on this discussion where it's actually relevant that Bitcoin is a currency and you can't bear to take those discussions there? >Further, the entire downvote system harms the conversation more as people leave or sit out conversations due to their voice being stifled by some random(s) on the internet The comment also gave a very bad reason to believe that bitcoin isn't a currency, and yes, that was polluting the discussion. No one has yet stood up to defend that argument, so I think I was on the right track. >Lastly why is medium a bad choice? Because it's an annoying site with every UX and privacy anti-pattern. ("Excuse the interruption...") But again, that was just on top of the two worse sins -- changing the core discussion, and presenting a poorly thought reason.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    If you want to be Big Mad at somebody, pick the guy who introduced the notion of bitcoin-as-currency as part of the explanation. But once that was introduced as part of how to value it, it was reasonable to reply to it.
    - tekknik 6y ago
      This, thanks.