Quote from: tadamichi on June 20, 2022, 11:40:17 AM

I refuted the definition, because you weren’t articulating yourself clearly, you didn’t even mention the word intrinsic value once till now(intrinsic value ≠ value). And nah i didnt fantasise about anything, this definition is still bad af for more serious use cases, even if you wanna use it for intrinsic value, but i won’t discuss this now, because it doesn’t matter.

You refuted nothing. You just said that my definition wouldn't be accepted.

Quote

If you wanna talk about intrinsic value, then it’s a different discussion. But finally you’re starting to articulate yourself more clearly, we can call this progress.

I don't want to talk about intrinsic value. I just stated the fact that after the bitcoin purchase, no intrinsic value exists to be consumed in order for people to satisfy their needs. There's nothing to discuss here.

Quote

The problem is you’re trying to suggest something with this. Sure there’s forms of money like gold than can be used to produce goods. But for people who used gold as money, this is not the primary function.

Irrelevant. The very reason gold is traded is because of its unique characters that are able to satisfy various human needs. Speculative buying doesn't change that fact. Gold still has intrinsic value that can be consumed by humans. This intrinsic value is what is stored in gold and traded.

Quote

Also like i said above, fungibility is important for any kind of money, small differences can already affect its desirability. So maybe it’s better in the first place, to not be able to make different things out of it, because amateurs won’t understand it and then shoot themselves in the foot. This is also be a point that could be made against nfts and tokens on a main layer.

Yes, fungibility is important for money, that is, for an economic resources. But bitcoin is not an economic resource. It's a unit in a system that has zero economic resources. Thus, bitcoin is not money and fungibility doesn't apply to it.

Quote

K let’s remember the state of the world in the last years, now let’s check out what Bitcoin did:

Uniting a group of anti authoritarians worldwide(which is hard, because they’re usually individualists and completely different from each other).
Challenging people to get deeper into computer science, economics, game theory and psychology.
No need to trust a central authority.
Self custody over money.
Censorship resistance.
Transaction finality.
Sane monetary policy that won’t change in our lifetime.
Hardest asset to confiscate.
Tearing down economic gatekeeping(you can transact worldwide, or borderlessly recover your money, if you can remember 12/24 words(optionally a passphrase on top) or keep them safe).
No need for permissions.
Best long term perfoming asset in the last decade.
Triggering morally bankrupt and emotional people.

The list goes on.

Im sure no human can get a benefit out of this, because making jewelry out of money is more important for the world right now.

There's one problem with all this. There's no economic resource in the bitcoin system, so there's nothing to confiscate, counterfeit or put in trust. Meaning, people are just transferring the info on how many units in the scheme with zero economic resources they have. This is like having a losing lottery ticket, have 21 million ownership stakes in that ticket and all that people do is transferring and storing the info about how many stakes someone has or has had. There's nothing to confiscate, counterfeit or put in trust given that the ticket is a losing one and grants access to nothing. So, why would you spend time and energy on transferring and storing info on these stakes? It's a complete nonsense. That's the essence of the whole bitcoin system.

Quote

There’s an argument to be made, about how debt based money creation affects its durability. Because with each time you’re taking or giving a loan, you’re essentially making everyone else’s purchasing power go lower, on the big scale this is huge.

How durable is it to gain some additional economic capabilities individually in the short term, but then making the entire working population fall into the cantillon effect(more and more extreme concentration of wealth at the top).

So repeated use of Fiat actually affects it’s durability to be used as a store value, no matter how someone will phrase it, which makes it a weak form of money long term.

Irrelevant. Debt is an economic resource because it benefits people at settlement. The quantity of debt is a completely different question that has nothing to do with this topic.

Quote

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

And now to put it simply, stop mixing economic resources and money, because it will do you more harm than good and just create confusion to yourself. In most cases money isn’t supposed to be used as an economic resource(to produce goods or services). It should facilitate trade, but not be an productive resource itself. The purest form of money isn’t to be used for anything else, like i outlined above, using money for different things can be counterproductive.

Money is just a name for specific types of economic resources. Unit in a system that has zero economic resources cannot be money by definition because there nothing to compare with the resources that you give up in a trade. Bitcoin is unit in a system with zero economic resources that is falsely advertised as money.