5 ms·

1. My citations are sketchy. Can you do better? 3rd time I've asked. 2. Does the article call the gold bars "proto-money"? Sure, but now we're just bickering o

1. My citations are sketchy. Can you do better? 3rd time I've asked. 2. Does the article call the gold bars "proto-money"? Sure, but now we're just bickering over definitions. The same article says the Egyptians used gold bars as a medium of exchange, which I believe exactly fits what we've been discussing. If you define "currency" to mean something other than a "medium of exchange", then what is the distinction and how is it relevant to Bitcoin? 3. And this brings us back to the original point of contention ITT: Why do you believe a a successful currency (or successful medium of exchange) requires a centralized "standard" despite historical evidence of decentralized "commodity money"?

philwelch 13y ago
I'll concede that at many points in human history people used precious metals as currency without the involvement of a government, but for centuries--since the Roman Empire, to name one example--currencies have been established largely through government fiat even when based on some commodity. ("Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"). The "gold standard", in the US, was established by federal law in 1900, replacing bimetallism, the previous basis. Respectfully, I don't see how the use of precious metals in Ancient Egypt is relevant to the role of currency in a post-industrial world.
- Double_Cast 13y ago
  > in a post-industrial world. It appears our disagreement lies in "post-industrial". My first thought was "I don't see how the use of precious metals in Ancient Egypt is any different from the role of currency in a post-industrial world." Now, asserting our myopia leaves us nowhere. But as long as this thread is already, I'd like to dig deeper. Given the Mt. Gox debacle, I'm assuming your line of reasoning is related to trust. E.g. "the purely electronic form of bitcoin allows it to be stolen on a scale not feasible with more tangible forms of money." But then, do banks prevent the laundering of USD electronically? Or perhaps "who will insure against theft if not the government?" But then, who insured against theft prior to Hamilton's creation of the U.S. National Bank? But at this point, I'm fully immersed in strawman land.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    That's because this entire thread has been a chain of irrelevant derailments and strawman attacks on your end.
    - Double_Cast 13y ago
      The reason I knowingly offered strawmen citations was to provide a prototype of the response I was looking for. Responses like "but its use as currency was generally..." didn't really fit the bill. Nor did "I don't see how [so and so]". Ideally, I wanted to understand your reasoning. I still haven't gotten very far. Consider that if I can't decipher why you disagree and I'm not permitted to construct hypotheticals (strawmen) as to why you disagree, that leaves me with either assuming you're automatically wrong or not thinking critically at all. Derailment? I don't think that's fair. Until now, I've been pursuing the same question this entire thread (why you disagree with top post).

philwelch 13y ago

I'll concede that at many points in human history people used precious metals as currency without the involvement of a government, but for centuries--since the Roman Empire, to name one example--currencies have been established largely through government fiat even when based on some commodity. ("Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"). The "gold standard", in the US, was established by federal law in 1900, replacing bimetallism, the previous basis. Respectfully, I don't see how the use of precious metals in Ancient Egypt is relevant to the role of currency in a post-industrial world.

Double_Cast 13y ago
> in a post-industrial world. It appears our disagreement lies in "post-industrial". My first thought was "I don't see how the use of precious metals in Ancient Egypt is any different from the role of currency in a post-industrial world." Now, asserting our myopia leaves us nowhere. But as long as this thread is already, I'd like to dig deeper. Given the Mt. Gox debacle, I'm assuming your line of reasoning is related to trust. E.g. "the purely electronic form of bitcoin allows it to be stolen on a scale not feasible with more tangible forms of money." But then, do banks prevent the laundering of USD electronically? Or perhaps "who will insure against theft if not the government?" But then, who insured against theft prior to Hamilton's creation of the U.S. National Bank? But at this point, I'm fully immersed in strawman land.
- philwelch 13y ago
  That's because this entire thread has been a chain of irrelevant derailments and strawman attacks on your end.
  - Double_Cast 13y ago
    The reason I knowingly offered strawmen citations was to provide a prototype of the response I was looking for. Responses like "but its use as currency was generally..." didn't really fit the bill. Nor did "I don't see how [so and so]". Ideally, I wanted to understand your reasoning. I still haven't gotten very far. Consider that if I can't decipher why you disagree and I'm not permitted to construct hypotheticals (strawmen) as to why you disagree, that leaves me with either assuming you're automatically wrong or not thinking critically at all. Derailment? I don't think that's fair. Until now, I've been pursuing the same question this entire thread (why you disagree with top post).