3 ms·

Germany seems to disagree with your point: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/germany-declares-bitcoins-to-be-a-unit-of-account-a-917525.html http://w

Germany seems to disagree with your point: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/germany-declares-bitcoins-to-be-a-unit-of-account-a-917525.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/germany-declare... Edit: Wikipedia gives the following requirements for "unit of account": To function as a 'unit of account', whatever is being used as money must be: Divisible into smaller units without loss of value; precious metals can be coined from bars, or melted down into bars again. Fungible: that is, one unit or piece must be perceived as equivalent to any other, which is why diamonds, works of art or real estate are not suitable as money. A specific weight, or measure, or size to be verifiably countable. For instance, coins are often milled with a reeded edge, so that any removal of material from the coin (lowering its commodity value) will be easy to detect. Except for having a specific weight, Bitcoin has these: 1 Bitcoin is the same as any other, and it can be broken into 0.5, 0.1 and even 0.0001 Bitcoins.

kaonashi 12y ago
I think the sticking point there is differences in definition of 'unit of account'. My main point is that Bitcoin is nobodies liability; this is by design. The dollar is a liability of the issuer, which can be used to extinguish tax debt. This goes into a much larger point about the nature of money and how it evolved from ad-hoc credit arrangements. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tks7oJkFRg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tks7oJkFRg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zEbo8PIPSc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zEbo8PIPSc
- Mandelbug 12y ago
  Regardless of its "technical" or "economic" definition, to the layman and all its users, Bitcoin is treated, traded, and consumed as money. The exact origins of Bitcoin do not change its utility, which is as a unit of exchange, which is what money is in its most general and flexible definition.
  - kaonashi 12y ago
    All true, but it does not diminish my point; that since the dawn of capitalism, money has been a balance sheet phenomenon: being simultaneously someone's asset and someone else's liability, and in this Bitcoin is different.
    - eru 12y ago
      What about gold coins?
    - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
      That seems odd - if A visits will road and buys drugs off B then A owes B one bitcoin - that is a human level contract that is clearly understood. A balance sheet accounting of this transaction would as easily be In bitcoins as dollars (A has a liability of 1 bitcoin, B has an asset) As long as B wishes to denominate their accounts in bitcoins this is quite reasonable. Or am I missing something ? (Interestingly the Indian mathematician who invented negative numbers did so using accounts and debt as an example (bhagravita? 500AD)
      - kaonashi 12y ago
        >Or am I missing something ? Banking.
        lifeisstillgood 12y ago
        I don't understand - why is banking meaning that I owe someone 100 bitcoins a problem? It's an unstable currency yes but the same can be said for Zimbabwean dollar
        kaonashi 12y ago
        In your case, the transaction is barter, a transfer of one non-financial asset for another. If you have a contract to provide 100 BTC, then that contract would be money, denominated in BTC (not the BTC themselves). It would exist on one balance sheet as an asset, and on another as a liability (at the same time).

kaonashi 12y ago

I think the sticking point there is differences in definition of 'unit of account'. My main point is that Bitcoin is nobodies liability; this is by design. The dollar is a liability of the issuer, which can be used to extinguish tax debt. This goes into a much larger point about the nature of money and how it evolved from ad-hoc credit arrangements. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tks7oJkFRg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tks7oJkFRg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zEbo8PIPSc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zEbo8PIPSc

Mandelbug 12y ago
Regardless of its "technical" or "economic" definition, to the layman and all its users, Bitcoin is treated, traded, and consumed as money. The exact origins of Bitcoin do not change its utility, which is as a unit of exchange, which is what money is in its most general and flexible definition.
- kaonashi 12y ago
  All true, but it does not diminish my point; that since the dawn of capitalism, money has been a balance sheet phenomenon: being simultaneously someone's asset and someone else's liability, and in this Bitcoin is different.
  - eru 12y ago
    What about gold coins?
  - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
    That seems odd - if A visits will road and buys drugs off B then A owes B one bitcoin - that is a human level contract that is clearly understood. A balance sheet accounting of this transaction would as easily be In bitcoins as dollars (A has a liability of 1 bitcoin, B has an asset) As long as B wishes to denominate their accounts in bitcoins this is quite reasonable. Or am I missing something ? (Interestingly the Indian mathematician who invented negative numbers did so using accounts and debt as an example (bhagravita? 500AD)
    - kaonashi 12y ago
      >Or am I missing something ? Banking.
      - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
        I don't understand - why is banking meaning that I owe someone 100 bitcoins a problem? It's an unstable currency yes but the same can be said for Zimbabwean dollar
        kaonashi 12y ago
        In your case, the transaction is barter, a transfer of one non-financial asset for another. If you have a contract to provide 100 BTC, then that contract would be money, denominated in BTC (not the BTC themselves). It would exist on one balance sheet as an asset, and on another as a liability (at the same time).