Quote from: username18333 on August 20, 2015, 09:19:46 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on August 20, 2015, 09:14:40 PM

I don't see the difference your distinction makes, (why is this important?).

The electricity is consumed, the sunk cost of the hardware is depreciated over time as it is used, heat is a byproduct.
The water and sunlight is consumed, land is depreciated, new seeds may be produced, fiber is a byproduct.

No matter and energy is created or destroyed, though a modicum is transformed, in each case.

Both cases the means of production are not consumed, both require some amount of entropy/time to pass. The process is similar enough that the distinction is not so meaningful.

Quote from: NewLiberty on August 19, 2015, 06:54:19 PM

The guy with the pot started with a seed and some sun.
The guy with the coin started with a CPU, code and some energy.

If you have extra of either, you might do a trade, but... why not just use a better coin?

The "seed and some sun[light]" (NewLiberty) is "consumed" (NewLiberty); however, the "code" (NewLiberty) never is, and the "CPU" (NewLiberty) but marginally so.

Right, we already agreed on this. The electricity for generating the coin is also "consumed".
Both are exchanging product and not the means of production (they aren't trading hashing farms for... well... hash farms).

We agree that they are distinct things being exchanged with distinct processes to create them, what I am looking for is why this distinction matters to you or anyone?
My guess is that you were trying to establish that in a cost-basis theory of market exchange that any amount of one for the other would not be "fair"... or something else?