5 ms·

I don't know how many times this will have to be pointed out before people get it... Currencies don't have investors, they have users. Sure, there are currenc

by jbooth 14y ago

I don't know how many times this will have to be pointed out before people get it... Currencies don't have investors, they have users. Sure, there are currency traders but the point is to be used.

tptacek 14y ago
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. As you acknowledge, currencies obviously do have traders, like George Soros. So it's hard to start a comment with "currencies don't have traders". One of the problems with Bitcoin, of course, is that it is intensely speculative; its "users" hoard it, and its transaction volume as a currency is so extremely thin (blog tip jars and "spa powder") that its "exchange rate" (more appropriately, it's spot price) is untenably volatile.
- jbooth 14y ago
  The exceptions prove the rules of course. Currencies do not have (>10% of volume of transactions) investors, they have (>90% of volume of transactions) users. Currencies are primarily mediums of exchange and occasionally used as an asset class. Bitcoin is primarily used as an asset class and very occasionally used as a medium of exchange. I don't think you're really disagreeing with me, we're just quibbling on semantics.
  - chollida1 14y ago
    > Currencies do not have (>10% of volume of transactions) investors, they have (>90% of volume of transactions) users. Are you sure about your numbers? from the fx exchange wikipdeia page: > As such, it has been referred to as the market closest to the ideal of perfect competition, notwithstanding currency intervention by central banks. According to the Bank for International Settlements,[3] as of April 2010, average daily turnover in global foreign exchange markets is estimated at $3.98 trillion, a growth of approximately 20% over the $3.21 trillion daily volume as of April 2007. Some firms specializing on foreign exchange market had put the average daily turnover in excess of US$4 trillion.[4] If you are right that less than 10% of fx transactions are traders and there is 4 trillion in fx trades a day then there must be 36 trillion in non trader transactions a day. That seems a bit high to me:) I think if anything you've got your values transposed:)
    - Locke1689 14y ago
      Why does 36 trillion seem high? Sounds about right, especially since some of the forex trades are for legitimate currency changing, not speculation.
      - chollida1 14y ago
        Mostly based on the Wikipedia estimate of 69 trillion as the world wide GDP. Though as I said, it's also very much a gut feel:)
        Locke1689 14y ago
        You should look a little more into what GDP means. The "money" you see is very much the tip of the iceberg.
        chollida1 14y ago
        > You should look a little more into what GDP means. The "money" you see is very much the tip of the iceberg. :) I work in finance. I'm well aware of what GDP means. I appreciate you trying though:)
dustcoin 14y ago
Bitcoin isn't just a currency, it is also a protocol and payment system.
- gojomo 14y ago
  Bitcoin is also founders' shares in a potential new future, a future where crypto and loose internetworked coordination replaces many old habits and institutions.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    In other words, it's not just a payments system, it's also a speculative commodity that subverts that payment system.
    - gojomo 14y ago
      It's definitely not just a 'payments system'. It's also not well fit to the traditional idea of a 'commodity'. I was emphasizing that it has some aspects of shareholder equity. Indeed, the keys which hold balances can be used to do things like weighted stakeholder votes: see the ideas for bitcoin-related [proof-of-stake] systems, or [bitcoin colored coins] for stockholder-of-record mechanisms embedded in the blockchain. Whether this 'speculative equity' aspect actually subverts bitcoin's potential use as a payment system, or instead complements it by creating a community-spirit and aligned-incentives for growth, is something that time will tell. But trying to shoehorn Bitcoin into any of the traditional categories -- currency, commodity, payment system, cash, unit of account, equity, etc -- risks overlooking how strange and capable it might be. Bitcoin laughs at the old definitions, and extends out orthogonally into utility dimensions that were previously hard to even see.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        No, you can see it subverting the payment system right now. In the lifetime of a good-for-10-minutes Bitpay quote, the spot price for Bitcoin can and has swung by tens of dollars. Your argument is basically a flight to abstraction. Everything can be made to sound good in the abstract. In reality, Bitcoin is first and foremost a speculative bubble.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
brown9-2 14y ago
If you keep trying to point something out and no one gets it, maybe the thing you are trying to point out is false? The subjects of the article are converting USD into bitcoin in the hope that one day in the future their bitcoin is worth more than it is today. What else would you call that but "investing", and "speculating" at that?

by jbooth 14y ago

I don't know how many times this will have to be pointed out before people get it... Currencies don't have investors, they have users. Sure, there are currency traders but the point is to be used.

tptacek 14y ago

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. As you acknowledge, currencies obviously do have traders, like George Soros. So it's hard to start a comment with "currencies don't have traders". One of the problems with Bitcoin, of course, is that it is intensely speculative; its "users" hoard it, and its transaction volume as a currency is so extremely thin (blog tip jars and "spa powder") that its "exchange rate" (more appropriately, it's spot price) is untenably volatile.

jbooth 14y ago
The exceptions prove the rules of course. Currencies do not have (>10% of volume of transactions) investors, they have (>90% of volume of transactions) users. Currencies are primarily mediums of exchange and occasionally used as an asset class. Bitcoin is primarily used as an asset class and very occasionally used as a medium of exchange. I don't think you're really disagreeing with me, we're just quibbling on semantics.
- chollida1 14y ago
  > Currencies do not have (>10% of volume of transactions) investors, they have (>90% of volume of transactions) users. Are you sure about your numbers? from the fx exchange wikipdeia page: > As such, it has been referred to as the market closest to the ideal of perfect competition, notwithstanding currency intervention by central banks. According to the Bank for International Settlements,[3] as of April 2010, average daily turnover in global foreign exchange markets is estimated at $3.98 trillion, a growth of approximately 20% over the $3.21 trillion daily volume as of April 2007. Some firms specializing on foreign exchange market had put the average daily turnover in excess of US$4 trillion.[4] If you are right that less than 10% of fx transactions are traders and there is 4 trillion in fx trades a day then there must be 36 trillion in non trader transactions a day. That seems a bit high to me:) I think if anything you've got your values transposed:)
  - Locke1689 14y ago
    Why does 36 trillion seem high? Sounds about right, especially since some of the forex trades are for legitimate currency changing, not speculation.
    - chollida1 14y ago
      Mostly based on the Wikipedia estimate of 69 trillion as the world wide GDP. Though as I said, it's also very much a gut feel:)
      - Locke1689 14y ago
        You should look a little more into what GDP means. The "money" you see is very much the tip of the iceberg.
        chollida1 14y ago
        > You should look a little more into what GDP means. The "money" you see is very much the tip of the iceberg. :) I work in finance. I'm well aware of what GDP means. I appreciate you trying though:)

dustcoin 14y ago

Bitcoin isn't just a currency, it is also a protocol and payment system.

gojomo 14y ago
Bitcoin is also founders' shares in a potential new future, a future where crypto and loose internetworked coordination replaces many old habits and institutions.
- tptacek 14y ago
  In other words, it's not just a payments system, it's also a speculative commodity that subverts that payment system.
  - gojomo 14y ago
    It's definitely not just a 'payments system'. It's also not well fit to the traditional idea of a 'commodity'. I was emphasizing that it has some aspects of shareholder equity. Indeed, the keys which hold balances can be used to do things like weighted stakeholder votes: see the ideas for bitcoin-related [proof-of-stake] systems, or [bitcoin colored coins] for stockholder-of-record mechanisms embedded in the blockchain. Whether this 'speculative equity' aspect actually subverts bitcoin's potential use as a payment system, or instead complements it by creating a community-spirit and aligned-incentives for growth, is something that time will tell. But trying to shoehorn Bitcoin into any of the traditional categories -- currency, commodity, payment system, cash, unit of account, equity, etc -- risks overlooking how strange and capable it might be. Bitcoin laughs at the old definitions, and extends out orthogonally into utility dimensions that were previously hard to even see.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      No, you can see it subverting the payment system right now. In the lifetime of a good-for-10-minutes Bitpay quote, the spot price for Bitcoin can and has swung by tens of dollars. Your argument is basically a flight to abstraction. Everything can be made to sound good in the abstract. In reality, Bitcoin is first and foremost a speculative bubble.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

brown9-2 14y ago

If you keep trying to point something out and no one gets it, maybe the thing you are trying to point out is false? The subjects of the article are converting USD into bitcoin in the hope that one day in the future their bitcoin is worth more than it is today. What else would you call that but "investing", and "speculating" at that?