3 ms·

That is what I meant by "fuck all". Aside from standard background search noise, the phrase "chattel currency" is virtually unused. I am guessing, as suggeste

by jlgreco 14y ago

That is what I meant by "fuck all". Aside from standard background search noise, the phrase "chattel currency" is virtually unused. I am guessing, as suggested by others, that he actually said "shadow". Still loaded language (bitcoin is hardly shadow; the blockchain is public..) but it makes far more sense in the context.

dragonwriter 14y ago
> That is what I meant by "fuck all". Aside from standard background search noise, the phrase "chattel currency" is virtually unused. Its used prior to the article at issue here, numerous times, in the exact sense used in the article (a derogatory reference to non-legal-tender currency), by a community that it has been widely observed overlaps with the bitcoin enthusiast community, and which it would be quite likely to expect that the speaker quoted in the article at issue here would, therefore, be likely to be directing his comments at. That's not "background search noise", that's directly relevant to the usage in the quote in the article.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I didn't say it was never used. I said it was virtually never used. That those few usages are all that you can find is my point. It is not a common term by any means. I find it extremely plausible that it was incorrectly transcribed in this instance. Barring that, I find it plausible that it was picked for it's loaded connotations (If so many people have found this term objectionable, and the term is not in common usage otherwise, I find it plausible that all of the usages that you have found were picked with the common usage of "chattel" in mind. Were this a term that actually seemed to be in common usage, I would not find this to be plausible.) The later was my knee-jerk interpretation, but I think I was wrong and my money is now on the former. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5670201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5670201
  - dragonwriter 14y ago
    > I find it extremely plausible that it was incorrectly transcribed in this instance. I don't. The context it is used in in the article (not just the reference to "chattel currency" but the reference to the user of such a currency being a "shill for the financial industry" is pretty dead on the the criticism by the subculture in which you find "chattel currency" used prior to the article makes of US Federal Reserve Notes as a scam that was promoted by the banking giants that are members of the Fed to get people to hand over their "legal tender" gold for not-legal-tender (as they claim) Federal Reserve Notes, the commissioner has just dropped bitcoin into the place of Federal Reserve Notes and the network of bitcoin miners in place of the banks that make up the Federal Reserve system. Its not particularly plausible that the commissioner meant to say something else and it was conveniently "mistranscribed" into an attack on bitcoin that specifically uses both the terminology and the substantive logic of a attack by a subculture that has substantial overlap with the pro-bitcoin community against the trustworthiness of the US dollar and the system supporting it.
drcode 14y ago
LOL the first link he uses as contrary evidence is for a message on a UFO forum (but the link actually appears broken.)
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  Yes, the sites that show that a particular use is common in a relevant conspiracy theorist community are, well, often somewhat unhinged sites. This should be unsurprising. (And clicking the link works for me, don't know why it seems broken to you.)

by jlgreco 14y ago

dragonwriter 14y ago

> That is what I meant by "fuck all". Aside from standard background search noise, the phrase "chattel currency" is virtually unused. Its used prior to the article at issue here, numerous times, in the exact sense used in the article (a derogatory reference to non-legal-tender currency), by a community that it has been widely observed overlaps with the bitcoin enthusiast community, and which it would be quite likely to expect that the speaker quoted in the article at issue here would, therefore, be likely to be directing his comments at. That's not "background search noise", that's directly relevant to the usage in the quote in the article.

jlgreco 14y ago
I didn't say it was never used. I said it was virtually never used. That those few usages are all that you can find is my point. It is not a common term by any means. I find it extremely plausible that it was incorrectly transcribed in this instance. Barring that, I find it plausible that it was picked for it's loaded connotations (If so many people have found this term objectionable, and the term is not in common usage otherwise, I find it plausible that all of the usages that you have found were picked with the common usage of "chattel" in mind. Were this a term that actually seemed to be in common usage, I would not find this to be plausible.) The later was my knee-jerk interpretation, but I think I was wrong and my money is now on the former. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5670201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5670201
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  > I find it extremely plausible that it was incorrectly transcribed in this instance. I don't. The context it is used in in the article (not just the reference to "chattel currency" but the reference to the user of such a currency being a "shill for the financial industry" is pretty dead on the the criticism by the subculture in which you find "chattel currency" used prior to the article makes of US Federal Reserve Notes as a scam that was promoted by the banking giants that are members of the Fed to get people to hand over their "legal tender" gold for not-legal-tender (as they claim) Federal Reserve Notes, the commissioner has just dropped bitcoin into the place of Federal Reserve Notes and the network of bitcoin miners in place of the banks that make up the Federal Reserve system. Its not particularly plausible that the commissioner meant to say something else and it was conveniently "mistranscribed" into an attack on bitcoin that specifically uses both the terminology and the substantive logic of a attack by a subculture that has substantial overlap with the pro-bitcoin community against the trustworthiness of the US dollar and the system supporting it.

drcode 14y ago

LOL the first link he uses as contrary evidence is for a message on a UFO forum (but the link actually appears broken.)

dragonwriter 14y ago
Yes, the sites that show that a particular use is common in a relevant conspiracy theorist community are, well, often somewhat unhinged sites. This should be unsurprising. (And clicking the link works for me, don't know why it seems broken to you.)