4 ms·

Works for me, maybe you are holding it wrong.

arcticbull 5y ago
It's not money if all you do is hold it lol. That makes it an asset. Spending it in exchange for goods and services makes it money, and 4 tx/sec doesn't give you a lot of room to do that. And uh, well, you see, many other assets have outperformed it over the last 5 years.
- scottiebarnes 5y ago
  > It's not money if all you do is hold it lol. Hmm, we need to tell every Central Bank in the world that the gold bars they're holding aren't money. Fort Knox must be a cover for government experimentation on aliens.
  - detaro 5y ago
    ... which Central Bank refers to their gold assets as "money"?
    - scottiebarnes 5y ago
      You're right, they wouldn't refer to it as money because that would undermine the power of their own printed fiat currency. So its just some sort of very expensive commodity asset, which is used to store value, which we can expect to use to trade with other people, which USED to be money but somehow isn't anymore.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        > You're right, they wouldn't refer to it as money because that would undermine the power of their own printed fiat currency. No they don't refer to it as money because words have meaning.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > Hmm, we need to tell every Central Bank in the world that the gold bars they're holding aren't money. Sorry, gold is not money. You do know that right? It's a commodity. I think you and I talked about this - recently. Money is: a current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively. And of course our money is fiat which is: inconvertible paper money made legal tender by a government decree.
  - scottiebarnes 5y ago
    Ah, so what were we using before Bretton Woods? I didn't know that the silver and gold minted coins traded by Roman merchants were in fact not money, but commodities. There's just so much utility in carrying around sacks of metal shards.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      > I didn't know that the silver and gold minted coins traded by Roman merchants were in fact not money, but commodities. It was money in Roman times. Luckily we have moved on. It is no longer money, unless you're planning on trading with Marcus Aurelius. Gold was demonetized in the 30s.
      - scottiebarnes 5y ago
        Oh, so only the government definition of money is whats relevant here, and only of the last ~100 years. Historical and physical contexts of money are irrelevant. Its interesting because you were even brave enough to includ "coin" in your definition. Coins are made of rare earth metal blends, like silver, copper, nickel, and gold. So metals are only money when its in a small circular token form factor, but not when its melted together into a heavier bar. Got it.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        Oh scottie. > Coins are made of rare earth metal blends, like silver, copper, nickel, and gold. Those are not rare earth metals. They are metals, but not rare earth metals. Those are "any of a group of chemically similar metallic elements comprising the lanthanide series and (usually) scandium and yttrium. They are not especially rare, but they tend to occur together in nature and are difficult to separate from one another." Also, nickel isn't rare by any definition. Nickel is the fifth most abundant element on Earth. > So metals are only money when its in a small circular token form factor, but not when its melted together into a heavier bar. Got it. No, that's also wrong. "The characteristics of money are durability, portability, divisibility, uniformity, limited supply, and acceptability." Gold fails the acceptability test because to be money, something must be broadly accepted as a medium of exchange. It is not accepted by anyone. Walk into a Walmart with a brick of gold and they'll tell you to get stuffed. You'll get the same response at Home Depot or if you try and email Amazon. That's why it's not money. > Oh, so only the government definition of money is whats relevant here, and only of the last ~100 years. Historical and physical contexts of money are irrelevant. They're relevant in antiquity. Not so relevant today. Like a hitching post. What matters isn't even the government definition but rather the social definition.

It's not money if all you do is hold it lol. That makes it an asset. Spending it in exchange for goods and services makes it money, and 4 tx/sec doesn't give you a lot of room to do that. And uh, well, you see, many other assets have outperformed it over the last 5 years.

scottiebarnes 5y ago
> It's not money if all you do is hold it lol. Hmm, we need to tell every Central Bank in the world that the gold bars they're holding aren't money. Fort Knox must be a cover for government experimentation on aliens.
- detaro 5y ago
  ... which Central Bank refers to their gold assets as "money"?
  - scottiebarnes 5y ago
    You're right, they wouldn't refer to it as money because that would undermine the power of their own printed fiat currency. So its just some sort of very expensive commodity asset, which is used to store value, which we can expect to use to trade with other people, which USED to be money but somehow isn't anymore.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      > You're right, they wouldn't refer to it as money because that would undermine the power of their own printed fiat currency. No they don't refer to it as money because words have meaning.
arcticbull 5y ago
> Hmm, we need to tell every Central Bank in the world that the gold bars they're holding aren't money. Sorry, gold is not money. You do know that right? It's a commodity. I think you and I talked about this - recently. Money is: a current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively. And of course our money is fiat which is: inconvertible paper money made legal tender by a government decree.
- scottiebarnes 5y ago
  Ah, so what were we using before Bretton Woods? I didn't know that the silver and gold minted coins traded by Roman merchants were in fact not money, but commodities. There's just so much utility in carrying around sacks of metal shards.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > I didn't know that the silver and gold minted coins traded by Roman merchants were in fact not money, but commodities. It was money in Roman times. Luckily we have moved on. It is no longer money, unless you're planning on trading with Marcus Aurelius. Gold was demonetized in the 30s.
    - scottiebarnes 5y ago
      Oh, so only the government definition of money is whats relevant here, and only of the last ~100 years. Historical and physical contexts of money are irrelevant. Its interesting because you were even brave enough to includ "coin" in your definition. Coins are made of rare earth metal blends, like silver, copper, nickel, and gold. So metals are only money when its in a small circular token form factor, but not when its melted together into a heavier bar. Got it.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Oh scottie. > Coins are made of rare earth metal blends, like silver, copper, nickel, and gold. Those are not rare earth metals. They are metals, but not rare earth metals. Those are "any of a group of chemically similar metallic elements comprising the lanthanide series and (usually) scandium and yttrium. They are not especially rare, but they tend to occur together in nature and are difficult to separate from one another." Also, nickel isn't rare by any definition. Nickel is the fifth most abundant element on Earth. > So metals are only money when its in a small circular token form factor, but not when its melted together into a heavier bar. Got it. No, that's also wrong. "The characteristics of money are durability, portability, divisibility, uniformity, limited supply, and acceptability." Gold fails the acceptability test because to be money, something must be broadly accepted as a medium of exchange. It is not accepted by anyone. Walk into a Walmart with a brick of gold and they'll tell you to get stuffed. You'll get the same response at Home Depot or if you try and email Amazon. That's why it's not money. > Oh, so only the government definition of money is whats relevant here, and only of the last ~100 years. Historical and physical contexts of money are irrelevant. They're relevant in antiquity. Not so relevant today. Like a hitching post. What matters isn't even the government definition but rather the social definition.