4 ms·

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 o

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).
- pjc50 12y ago
  This is not true of coins.
  - kaonashi 12y ago
    If they're stamped by the sovereign, they are. What matters is acceptance for payment of tax debt, that's what makes it the sovereign liability.

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).
pjc50 12y ago
This is not true of coins.
- kaonashi 12y ago
  If they're stamped by the sovereign, they are. What matters is acceptance for payment of tax debt, that's what makes it the sovereign liability.