Quote from: realr0ach on January 14, 2018, 09:34:41 AM

Complete bullshit definition. It's just some Tyler on ZH talking his book. He used the definition of CURRENCY as the definition of MONEY. Dog shit can be used as currency. Money has mandatory, required traits like fungibility. That Tyler is a scammer. He also ended his post with "but cryptos and blockchain are the future". Just like how every mindless baboon scammer on this forum repeats the same cut and paste phrase "blockchain is the future", "ethereum is the future", "ripple is the future".

Bitcoin is a currency, not money. That's why it's called "cryptocurrency", you apes. Cryptocurrencies are designed to centralize, permissioned ledger, non-fungible, Rube Goldberg machine currencies. They sure as fuck aren't money. As if something based on artificial scarcity could be money. You do know scarcity is also a required trait of money, right? And no, scarcity does not mean "artificial scarcity" where some Russian jackass named Vitalik instantly creates a billion scamcoins in his basement by snapping his fingers, and can do the same thing again 5 seconds later. That does not qualify as scarcity. Neither does bitcoin. Artificial scarcity is not scarcity.

Silver and gold are money. Bitcoin is a currency just like US dollars and airline miles. Have you noticed the common denominator of currencies yet? They're generally all based on artificial scarcity.

Who on Bitcoin can snap his fingers and create money out of thin air? It may be true with Ethereum and any other crypto that has a visible leader which has insane amounts of power and influence (basically the creator tends to have this cult following), but who would be allowed to hardfork Bitcoin unilaterally to raise the total limit supply?

Also as it it really artificial scarcity? The power to generate the coins is very real and exists on the universe (which is why I don't believe in non-PoW proposals thus far). The curve of inflation is what's coded... but once coded it cannot be changed realistically. It's an interesting thing to think about.

In any case, are you sure "organic scarcity" is good and better than an strict set of rules which everyone has to follow?

Suppose you are holding gold, then technology allows us to go into asteroids and we find an insane amount of gold somewhere else. You may not see this but if you have kids or family that inherits your gold, they would, then their gold purchasing power would collapse as huge amounts of gold are found interplanetary or in asteroids. At that point you are fucked, but if Bitcoin is still working, Bitcoin holders would be the winners.