Quote from: BobK71 on April 26, 2017, 08:59:47 PM

Quote from: deisik on April 26, 2017, 05:18:47 PM

Quote from: BobK71 on April 26, 2017, 04:31:40 PM

Did the state take over Western Union?

It is simply absurd to assert that the state no longer has a monopoly on money. If we are not using dollars or euro, are we using clam shells to buy stuff?

Western Union doesn't print their own money

The same pertains to PayPal and other payment processing companies whatever their name might be. Honestly, somehow I thought you were smarter than that. Anyway, the question is not about clam shells, the question is about Bitcoin. And yes, Bitcoin did break the government monopoly on issuing money big-time, and it happened precisely because the government lost their monopoly on communications. A few private companies tried to do essentially the same in the past with their money tokens but they were small fish and didn't end up well in the end. I remember about some Canadian company that was dismissed by the government for doing something which they hadn't the right to do (i.e. issue money). Bitcoin is global, and as such it is effectively beyond government control of any particular country. A government can forbid the circulation of bitcoins in the area, but they lack the power to forbid Bitcoin as such just like they can't forbid people to copulate or breathe

The fact remains, the government has always maintained a monopoly on money issuance in modern times. I don't care if your definition of money requires that money must know how to fly. You can't change this fact. Gold and Bitcoin might come the closest among everything else in challenging the monopoly, but they're not nearly close enough

You may like it or not but Bitcoin IS money

It is mostly used as a financial asset nowadays (which I always emphasize myself every time), but it fits the definition of money and does what this definition requires. And by its sheer existence, it proves that the government monopoly has been broken (the reasons why it happened I explained before). To successfully support your claim (i.e. that the state still keeps their monopoly on the issuance of money), you basically have to prove either of the following two points. First, that Bitcoin can't transfer value (I guess you won't deny Bitcoin existence as such, though who knows), or, second, that money is not about transferring value. And the latter is not my definition, just in case, since when money can no longer transfer value, it just ceases to be money. This is particularly true with respect to money tokens which have no value of their own, i.e. they are valued only as long as they can fulfill the function of money, that of transferring value

Quote from: BobK71 on April 26, 2017, 08:59:47 PM

Since it's obvious for anyone to see, any attempt to deny this merely confirms your desperation to argue that state money will be stable, by any means possible

That's hilarious (I hope you understand it yourself)