Quote from: loiterin9 on July 17, 2015, 05:20:01 AM

Quote from: Clegg on July 16, 2015, 07:58:30 PM

You need to learn to quote properly. You don't need to double post with massive walls of quotes each time but I've already substantiated it, but you haven't other than posting your incorrect opinion constantly so you need to substantiate yours or provide something more than hasn't been disproved time and time again. You're not going to change any ones opinion here but you can keep parroting it like it means something.

Thanks for the opportunity

Quote from: Clegg on July 16, 2015, 07:58:30 PM

Could you guarantee me that? Show me this guarantee. I'm not saying gold can't be used as currency, for instance gold coins, but most people won't accept gold coins or bits of gold for things, but you can't make your piece of gold divisible to pay for a packet of cigarettes nor could you get your change back in gold. In fact, I'd say it far easier and quicker to buy cigs for bitcoins than it is gold, so regardless of you saying bitcoin isn't a currency over and over that's just your opinion, and one where you're wrong.

You are confusing convenience with a definition of currency. Gold and later gold standard has been used for thousands of years as currency. As it is less divisible, yes, I agree it is not as convenient as for example bitcoin to make a small payment. But you argue that if it is convenient, divisible and more or less accepted unit of exchange than it is currency. In that case do you consider WebMoney as currency?

Quote from: Clegg on July 16, 2015, 07:58:30 PM

Oh, look, the troll has an alt account. So cigarettes are currency now but bitcoin isn't? Just because you keep repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true, though maybe in your head it does.

One in constructing an argument based on logical conclusions can chase the opponent's argument into absurd. You argued that if acceptance is one of the key characteristics of currency than cigarettes are wider accepted than bitcoin hence siggies are currency.

But currency is a lot more than a divisible, medium of exchange in order for it to be currency it has to be a legal tender and that was argued previously. You can call smonting currency but it does not make it currency in legal sense.

In my opinion bitcoin is closer to a unique token but if this token will be backed by gold will it be currency then? Or what needs to happen for it be recognized as currency. In the same what what needs to have happen for digitised gold or other conventional assets to be recognized as a digital asset?

Are you asking, if a currency is defined as a currency, if it's backed by gold? Because none of the 600+ currencies in the world would fit that definition, if THAT was true.

The currency debate will go on and on.. if your definition of a currency is only linked to it's "legal" status from a government point of view.

Let me ask you this... If say 10 countries/governments in the world, accept it as a legal tender, would you define it as a currency?

My definition and the Wiki definition of a currency differ in the sense that I accept a commodity as a currency, when it's widely accepted as a medium to exchange value.
{ a system of money in general use in a particular country. }

The Wiki version is based on fiat :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency