5 ms·

Cryptocurrencies are supported by more democratic means than fiat currencies. Anyone has freedom to use the cryptocurrency or not, which affects its value. The

by leppr 5y ago

Cryptocurrencies are supported by more democratic means than fiat currencies. Anyone has freedom to use the cryptocurrency or not, which affects its value. The supporters of some cryptocurrencies often have quasi-religious faith in it. Support and consent from humans does have value. Compare this with a fiat currency whose value is supported mostly only by a government forcing their citizens to pay taxes in this fiat currency, and forcefully taking down alternatives. Which of the currencies has more intrinsic value? What happens when the government can't manage to ban the alternatives anymore?

RandomLensman 5y ago
I think most people in wealthy countries do not feel forced to use their domestic currency - a strong claim otherwise would need some sort of good survey data to back it up. (And in fact where I live I am free to also buy crypto, no problem, still don't feel forced to use domestic currency).
- nathias 5y ago
  You have to pay taxes in the county's fiat, right? Thats what is meant by being forced to use it because if you don't you go to prison and if you resist that you get killed.
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    I honestly don't think that many people have that view versus taking the use of a common currency as one part of the social compact.
    - nathias 5y ago
      if it were a social contract it would be under duress, but that concept was antequated 200 years ago ...
      - RandomLensman 5y ago
        Again, your feeling of duress might not extend to the majority of citizens and not all societies share the view that social compacts are antiquated
        leppr 5y ago
        Social contracts don't encompass country-level laws (at least since passports appeared and freedom of movement vanished). A contract implies you have a choice: to abide by the rules and participate, or leave. Citizens of most countries don't have this realistic choice, as most of the world is legally closed to immigration. And to come back to the case of currency, the exclusive use of a single government-sanctioned currency is a recent phenomenon, not some deeply ingrained tradition. Local communities, governments and businesses frequently issued their own, and long distance trades were settled in commodities.
        RandomLensman 5y ago
        Social contracts DO encompass country level laws, at least in some countries people on average think so. Government created currencies with broad uptake are very old, not sure where that idea comes from that it is something new. Ancient Rome didn't just settle in commodities across the republic and empire. Early coinage was a major contributor to the creation of commerce and it was often tied to government/rulers. Those coins might not have been totally exclusive but nevertheless kind of a lingua franca version of currency precisely because they had enforcement behind them (social as well as governmental). Anyone can hold different views on what societies and governments should or should not do, mandate, etc. - but until you get the votes (or power) to enact your views it will be tough going if you want a different society.
        nathias 5y ago
        Social contract is a philosophical theory of legitimacy of state power, it isn't true because its based on 16century contract law that nobody is using any more and because it has other philosophically untennable problems. What citizens think about philosophical concepts is completely irrelevant.
RugnirViking 5y ago
I think you guys are misunderstanding the term "intrinsic value". If a currency is intrinsically valuble, that means it is valuble as a commodity on its own, i.e it is worth something outside of it's use as an exchange token. Dollars have the same intrinsic value as a sheet of used high quality paper. Gold is "intrinsically valuble" because it is useful for many things, such as manufacturing computer hardware or jewellery. Cryptocurrency is not intrinsically valuble in any sense aside from the value people place in it, which is not "intrinsic". In fact it is incidentally the same reason the dollar has any more value than its material cost. Also your argument that cryptocurrency is good because anyone can use it is strange, literally everyone is allowed to use the dollar, and pretty much everyone agrees that a dollar is worth a dollar, to the point that calling such a belief "faith" sounds ridiculous.

by leppr 5y ago

RandomLensman 5y ago

I think most people in wealthy countries do not feel forced to use their domestic currency - a strong claim otherwise would need some sort of good survey data to back it up. (And in fact where I live I am free to also buy crypto, no problem, still don't feel forced to use domestic currency).

nathias 5y ago
You have to pay taxes in the county's fiat, right? Thats what is meant by being forced to use it because if you don't you go to prison and if you resist that you get killed.
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  I honestly don't think that many people have that view versus taking the use of a common currency as one part of the social compact.
  - nathias 5y ago
    if it were a social contract it would be under duress, but that concept was antequated 200 years ago ...
    - RandomLensman 5y ago
      Again, your feeling of duress might not extend to the majority of citizens and not all societies share the view that social compacts are antiquated
      - leppr 5y ago
        Social contracts don't encompass country-level laws (at least since passports appeared and freedom of movement vanished). A contract implies you have a choice: to abide by the rules and participate, or leave. Citizens of most countries don't have this realistic choice, as most of the world is legally closed to immigration. And to come back to the case of currency, the exclusive use of a single government-sanctioned currency is a recent phenomenon, not some deeply ingrained tradition. Local communities, governments and businesses frequently issued their own, and long distance trades were settled in commodities.
        RandomLensman 5y ago
        Social contracts DO encompass country level laws, at least in some countries people on average think so. Government created currencies with broad uptake are very old, not sure where that idea comes from that it is something new. Ancient Rome didn't just settle in commodities across the republic and empire. Early coinage was a major contributor to the creation of commerce and it was often tied to government/rulers. Those coins might not have been totally exclusive but nevertheless kind of a lingua franca version of currency precisely because they had enforcement behind them (social as well as governmental). Anyone can hold different views on what societies and governments should or should not do, mandate, etc. - but until you get the votes (or power) to enact your views it will be tough going if you want a different society.
      - nathias 5y ago
        Social contract is a philosophical theory of legitimacy of state power, it isn't true because its based on 16century contract law that nobody is using any more and because it has other philosophically untennable problems. What citizens think about philosophical concepts is completely irrelevant.

RugnirViking 5y ago

I think you guys are misunderstanding the term "intrinsic value". If a currency is intrinsically valuble, that means it is valuble as a commodity on its own, i.e it is worth something outside of it's use as an exchange token. Dollars have the same intrinsic value as a sheet of used high quality paper. Gold is "intrinsically valuble" because it is useful for many things, such as manufacturing computer hardware or jewellery. Cryptocurrency is not intrinsically valuble in any sense aside from the value people place in it, which is not "intrinsic". In fact it is incidentally the same reason the dollar has any more value than its material cost. Also your argument that cryptocurrency is good because anyone can use it is strange, literally everyone is allowed to use the dollar, and pretty much everyone agrees that a dollar is worth a dollar, to the point that calling such a belief "faith" sounds ridiculous.