9 ms·

It is notable that this project, which is advertised as something related to Bitcoin, introduces itself on the Wiki with the concept of money-as-IOU. There is a

It is notable that this project, which is advertised as something related to Bitcoin, introduces itself on the Wiki with the concept of money-as-IOU. There is a serious clash of underlying philosophies of money here. On the one hand, you have Bitcoin, which is essentially an attempt to replicate a gold/commodity-like currency in a distributed, electronic fashion. On the other hand, you have the notion that all money is ultimately an abstraction of who owes who. That is, money models social relationships. A project that successfully combines these two notions could be quite interesting.

Spooky23 13y ago
I don't think that it's a conflict, it's reality kicking in. A good example of why this is happening is in the Christmas story. Mary and Joseph were travelling via donkey in while VERY pregnant to another city to pay their taxes to the Roman government. Tax payment in those days meant putting coins or goods in the tax collector's hands. Not very convenient or practical. The ability to use IOUs and trust as a payment vehicle solves a great many problems. Kids discover this at age 6 when they forget their lunch money. Trust is the key component, and a good reason why Bitcoin is successful. (example: The Chinese are always exploiting any means possible to get money in forms other than RMB)
dualogy 13y ago
> introduces itself on the Wiki with the concept of money-as-IOU That's what money is. You don't eat a coin or bill, it's an "IOU some future tangible good or service". Think about it, you either have barter -- no money concept involved. Or you have money-facilitated trade -- then the money (whether coins or bills or seashells) is always a "debt" of sorts for deferred/future "trade settlement". That IOU characteristic automatically happens to whatever emerges (or is decreed) as the unit-of-account+medium-of-exchange of the day. And that's fine, this and only this allows trade beyond immediate barter.
- Guvante 13y ago
  You are oversimplifying. You can either have a currency with intrinsic value or a fiat currency. The USD is a fiat currency, it only has value because the US government says it has value. Fiat currencies are very close to debt basises. Non-fiat currencies like Bitcoin are a little different, since there is actual value to a Bitcoin. It is similar to how gold and silver were once used. The benefit of fiat currencies is they can't be used for other things affecting the monetary supply, they are always in circulation (pretty much, obviously there are exceptions). Bitcoin is in a weird spot, it is a non-fiat currency without having to worry about the destruction aspects, as Bitcoins can't be destroyed. There is the whole getting lost thing, but that is unavoidable without implementing a use or lose it scheme (which some altcoins are trying).
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    USD would keep going for a long time even if the US government disappeared. Bitcoins do not have value. I've seen two arguments for it, and I'll counter both. 1. 'value because mining, network uses' Bitcoins are not mining, they are a reward for doing it. If nobody wants to trade for bitcoins, they have no more use than yesterday's lotto numbers. 2. 'bitcoins have qualities that make them good for trading' You cannot apply those qualities to anything other than the bitcoins themselves, so they become null in the scenario where nobody actually wants to trade for bitcoins. This is not intrinsic value. (bitcoin is fiat)
    - kylebrown 13y ago
      USD is gov-fiat, decreed by the laws ("legal code") of government. Bitcoin is crypto-fiat, decreed by the laws of cryptography and computer code (Lawrence Lessig's "code is law").
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        USD is used outside the US plenty. A lot of its value is simply people preferring to use it, the same kind of potential value that bitcoin has. And that value works with or without cryptography and math and code, so I find crypto-fiat a silly term. All it needs is a ledger, and crypto is merely one (rather secure) method of creating one.
- kaonashi 13y ago
  > And that's fine, this and only this allows trade beyond immediate barter. It's a rather open question as to which of these emerged first; it may very well have been the credit systems.
contingencies 13y ago
A project that successfully combines these two notions could be quite interesting. http://ifex-project.org/ http://ifex-project.org/ attempts to do just this. Overall strategy: (1) treat a transaction between entities as a higher level abstraction than that which occurs over the wire within a particular settlement system (2) segregate settlement pathways and assets (3) maintain absolute neutrality on both (4) keep things extensible Really amazed at how little feedback this has had despite frequently pointing at it in what I would have thought were the 'right' circles...
illvp 13y ago
Our project uses real-world game design and a tri-currency system (XP, time-based currency, dollar-backed currency). You can learn more at http://producia.org http://producia.org.

Spooky23 13y ago

I don't think that it's a conflict, it's reality kicking in. A good example of why this is happening is in the Christmas story. Mary and Joseph were travelling via donkey in while VERY pregnant to another city to pay their taxes to the Roman government. Tax payment in those days meant putting coins or goods in the tax collector's hands. Not very convenient or practical. The ability to use IOUs and trust as a payment vehicle solves a great many problems. Kids discover this at age 6 when they forget their lunch money. Trust is the key component, and a good reason why Bitcoin is successful. (example: The Chinese are always exploiting any means possible to get money in forms other than RMB)

dualogy 13y ago

> introduces itself on the Wiki with the concept of money-as-IOU That's what money is. You don't eat a coin or bill, it's an "IOU some future tangible good or service". Think about it, you either have barter -- no money concept involved. Or you have money-facilitated trade -- then the money (whether coins or bills or seashells) is always a "debt" of sorts for deferred/future "trade settlement". That IOU characteristic automatically happens to whatever emerges (or is decreed) as the unit-of-account+medium-of-exchange of the day. And that's fine, this and only this allows trade beyond immediate barter.

Guvante 13y ago
You are oversimplifying. You can either have a currency with intrinsic value or a fiat currency. The USD is a fiat currency, it only has value because the US government says it has value. Fiat currencies are very close to debt basises. Non-fiat currencies like Bitcoin are a little different, since there is actual value to a Bitcoin. It is similar to how gold and silver were once used. The benefit of fiat currencies is they can't be used for other things affecting the monetary supply, they are always in circulation (pretty much, obviously there are exceptions). Bitcoin is in a weird spot, it is a non-fiat currency without having to worry about the destruction aspects, as Bitcoins can't be destroyed. There is the whole getting lost thing, but that is unavoidable without implementing a use or lose it scheme (which some altcoins are trying).
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  USD would keep going for a long time even if the US government disappeared. Bitcoins do not have value. I've seen two arguments for it, and I'll counter both. 1. 'value because mining, network uses' Bitcoins are not mining, they are a reward for doing it. If nobody wants to trade for bitcoins, they have no more use than yesterday's lotto numbers. 2. 'bitcoins have qualities that make them good for trading' You cannot apply those qualities to anything other than the bitcoins themselves, so they become null in the scenario where nobody actually wants to trade for bitcoins. This is not intrinsic value. (bitcoin is fiat)
  - kylebrown 13y ago
    USD is gov-fiat, decreed by the laws ("legal code") of government. Bitcoin is crypto-fiat, decreed by the laws of cryptography and computer code (Lawrence Lessig's "code is law").
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      USD is used outside the US plenty. A lot of its value is simply people preferring to use it, the same kind of potential value that bitcoin has. And that value works with or without cryptography and math and code, so I find crypto-fiat a silly term. All it needs is a ledger, and crypto is merely one (rather secure) method of creating one.
kaonashi 13y ago
> And that's fine, this and only this allows trade beyond immediate barter. It's a rather open question as to which of these emerged first; it may very well have been the credit systems.

contingencies 13y ago

A project that successfully combines these two notions could be quite interesting. http://ifex-project.org/ http://ifex-project.org/ attempts to do just this. Overall strategy: (1) treat a transaction between entities as a higher level abstraction than that which occurs over the wire within a particular settlement system (2) segregate settlement pathways and assets (3) maintain absolute neutrality on both (4) keep things extensible Really amazed at how little feedback this has had despite frequently pointing at it in what I would have thought were the 'right' circles...

illvp 13y ago

Our project uses real-world game design and a tri-currency system (XP, time-based currency, dollar-backed currency). You can learn more at http://producia.org http://producia.org.