PDA

View Full Version : Bitcoin as a currency?



ynot2k
10-06-2017, 11:25 AM
A while back member AnotherDave posted he was involved with BTC when it reached parity with 1 FRN.

At that value (or cost, or price, or whatever one wishes to express it as) there would only ever be 21 million units available (just looking at Bitcoin, not other cryptos). 21 million units would seem to be completely restrictive as a currency. The fractions from the 3rd decimal down to the 8th would be totally unusable as they would have no practical value.

----
ETA: For simplicity in the following question can we assign (or assume) that unit of the currency in question has the value of one FRN? I understand this will not meet all the criteria that can be brought into the discussion but perhaps it will do.
----

I wonder what some here would suggest as the minimum number of units needed to make something a usable currency?

At $5000 FRN "value" of on BTC there would be 105 Billion units.

At $50K FRN per BTC there would be 1.05 Trillion units.

Is 105 Billion units enough for a viable currency?

Is 1.05 Trillion?

Any thoughts on the above?


ps I understand that there a some who think the real "value" is zero, or BTC is in a bubble and will crash, or will be run out of town by the sheriff etc. All points of view are worth considering but not all are relevant to the above questions.

AnotherDave
10-06-2017, 12:00 PM
A while back member AnotherDave posted he was involved with BTC when it reached parity with 1 FRN.

At that value (or cost, or price, or whatever one wishes to express it as) there would only ever be 21 million units available (just looking at Bitcoin, not other cryptos). 21 million units would seem to be completely restrictive as a currency. The fractions from the 3rd decimal down to the 8th would be totally unusable as they would have no practical value.

I wonder what some here would suggest as the minimum number of units needed to make something a usable currency?

At $5000 FRN "value" of on BTC there would be 105 Billion units.

At $50K FRN per BTC there would be 1.05 Trillion units.

Is 105 Billion units enough for a viable currency?

Is 1.05 Trillion?

Any thoughts on the above?


ps I understand that there a some who think the real "value" is zero, or BTC is in a bubble and will crash, or will be run out of town by the sheriff etc. All points of view are worth considering but not all are relevant to the above questions.

First, you'll have to define what those units are. Today's currencies ignore the question, as do the people who use them. This is life on the plantation, with the slaves only vaguely aware that something might be amiss. Carry on!

Bitcoin declares that there will be one final unit, and provably documents this with every transaction.

Instead of thinking of the currency unit as an ever-expanding amount of jack-nothing, think of it as a fraction of one something. That fraction is divided equally among all the stakeholders. Not skimmed off the top from the slaves.

And for accuracy, I was involved back when you could "mine" a Bitcoin every day or two on your ordinary desktop. I was only dreaming of the day when Bitcoin would reach parity.

ynot2k
10-06-2017, 12:51 PM
First, you'll have to define what those units are.

added to the opening post: For simplicity in the following question can we assign (or assume) that unit of the currency in question has the value of one FRN? I understand this will not meet all the criteria that can be brought into the discussion but perhaps it will do.


...
Bitcoin declares that there will be one final unit, and provably documents this with every transaction.

Instead of thinking of the currency unit as an ever-expanding amount of jack-nothing, think of it as a fraction of one something. That fraction is divided equally among all the stakeholders. Not skimmed off the top from the slaves.

And for accuracy, I was involved back when you could "mine" a Bitcoin every day or two on your ordinary desktop. I was only dreaming of the day when Bitcoin would reach parity.

That all may be and probably useful to some and some discussions. With the question in the OP I'm simply trying to find out what others think a minimum number of units of currency are needed to make the sum of the units a viable currency - and the question involves BTC as the currency. Surely 21 million units of a currency would be way to few few so BTC parity with a FRN would seem not to fill the bill.

Thanks.

AnotherDave
10-06-2017, 01:42 PM
You're starting off with a fallacy. What do you expect to result?

The FRN is not defined anywhere. 1.05 trillion times nothing is nothing. You can't come up with a number that multiplies with zero that results in anything greater than zero. If you really have that secret, I'll introduce you to President Maduro of Venezuela, who will make you one very rich person.

And I did answer the question. The answer is one. That is the only way you can have an undefined currency that makes any sense.

shades
10-06-2017, 02:18 PM
You're starting off with a fallacy. What do you expect to result?

The FRN is not defined anywhere. 1.05 trillion times nothing is nothing. You can't come up with a number that multiplies with zero that results in anything greater than zero. If you really have that secret, I'll introduce you to President Maduro of Venezuela, who will make you one very rich person.

And I did answer the question. The answer is one. That is the only way you can have an undefined currency that makes any sense.

Ok, now for a sincere question to your thesis that the FRN is unknowable in definition.

What should we refer to the medium of exchange, that the whole world refers to as a FRNx and its current, knowable value is, for example, about 1 quart of milk, or a third gallon of regular gas, or 1/1265th of an ounce of gold or almost exact cost of a 2x3x8 piece of lumber.

How about we all use the globally accepted definition of what a frn value is by substituting its value in the daily gold spot? After all there is literally nothing in human personal collective experience as unchqnging, non rotting, or changeable. But then to be consistent, you would also have to stop referring to bitcoin in any currency values as well.

ynot2k
10-06-2017, 02:30 PM
AnotherDave it may be that you and some other number of people on the planet do not ever use fiat. But for the remaining 99.999999999...% of people fiat is a thing. As such it is reasonable to use it as a a piece of the question in the OP.



And to your statement that Bitcoin declares there will be ONE final unit

AnotherDave
10-06-2017, 04:01 PM
AnotherDave it may be that you and some other number of people on the planet do not ever use fiat. But for the remaining 99.999999999...% of people fiat is a thing. As such it is reasonable to use it as a a piece of the question in the OP.



And to your statement that Bitcoin declares there will be ONE final unit


Fiat is only a "thing" when there is no competition. And that's what most governments do: Create fiat and stifle competition.

Today there is a choice. The fiats are losing 4322 to 1, worldwide, and the racketmeisters can't do a thing about it, other than to restrict free conversion and further make their own fiats less valuable.


And to your statement that Bitcoin declares there will be ONE final unit

I think I know where you are going here. Which would you rather hold, one share of increasing trillions, diluting in value each day, or one share of a fixed number, that increasing in value?

TPTB have been using the former to farm away your value all your life. There is now a competing currency, and you can choose.

shades
10-06-2017, 04:21 PM
Fiat is only a "thing" when there is no competition. And that's what most governments do: Create fiat and stifle competition.

Today there is a choice. The fiats are losing 4322 to 1, worldwide, and the racketmeisters can't do a thing about it, other than to restrict free conversion and further make their own fiats less valuable.



I think I know where you are going here. Which would you rather hold, one share of increasing trillions, diluting in value each day, or one share of a fixed number, that increasing in value?

TPTB have been using the former to farm away your value all your life. There is now a competing currency, and you can choose.

I don't quite understand your first comment, but I agree 100% with sentences #2, #3, #4, #5, there, in my opinion have always been competing currencies, whether it is Yap Beads, giant stone donuts, gold, silver, pepper, salt, kids aggie marbles, etc. I am all for more and more choices in currencies agreed to between two people. Another word for this is mutually, group agreed to barter of items existing in this world, for other items.