Bitcoin discussion and news

[not-bono-ever]

a transaction value, yes, but that is always going to be pretty opaque by bitcoins very nature

 

[butchersapron]

I don't know what that means. A use value is something inherent to a commodity such that if it were taken off market it would still exist - a coat for example. Bitcoins have no such value do they?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The comparison with gold is an interesting one. Isn't bitcoin just replicating all the problems a gold standard produces? Isn't fiat money a better system than that?

 

[not-bono-ever]

I don't know what that means. A use value is something inherent to a commodity such that if it were taken off market it would still exist - a coat for example. Bitcoins have no such value do they?

nope. at least with a block of gold, you can do something with it in practical terms, even if it has no worth as a medium for exchange any longer.

The power consumption aspect has been touched upon by several posters earlier when discussing mining and suchlike - this does strike me as fundamentally wrong - spunking a real world commodity on something that is arguaebly ethemeral.use yer leccy to smelt some Alumina into Aluminium and you have a tangible useful product.

 

[free spirit]

I don't know what that means. A use value is something inherent to a commodity such that if it were taken off market it would still exist - a coat for example. Bitcoins have no such value do they?

no intrinsic use value at all - they only have any purpose for so long as sufficient people remain confident enough in their value as a tradable currency, if that confidence went then they'd be utterly worthless.

tbh they're a lot worse than gold in that respect, as gold actually does have a real world function as a highly efficient electrical conductor, as well as in its use in jewellery, so it will always have at least some value as a commodity regardless of it's use as a financial store of wealth.

probably not put that quite right as my brain's shutting down for the night.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Most of us have little use for gold, except to make shiny ornaments out of it. Hence its suitability as money - it is prized but useless.

I don't see the lack of use value as bad. Fiat money does away with the pretence that our money has intrinsic value. Doesn't that just mean that it's better money?

 

[kabbes]

It strikes me that proper money is fundamentally kept valuable and stable by its adoption by governments. Sterling is the solely acceptable currency of the UK government -- it's what they pay people in and it's what they demand payment in (principally in the form of tax). That's half a trillion pounds' worth of value a year going each way guaranteed. The rest of the economy could choose to adopt something else, but when 20% of the GDP is already being traded by a single player in a single currency, it makes sense for everybody else to follow.

Until another currency has a similar heavyweight adopter, it is never going to have significant purchase (in either sense of the word).

 

[Idaho]

a transaction value, yes, but that is always going to be pretty opaque by bitcoins very nature

I would have thought that the there is value in a currency's ease of exchange. There is commodity value in a currency or other thing that facilitates particular transactions - ones that no other currencies can easily do.

The bitcoin bubble isn't over yet. It's still got a decent drop waiting to appear. Btc is the pioneer in the field. And because of that, probably won't survive. But it's achieved a lot. Discussed, even disparagingly in the ft several times is something. Also she mentions ripple and litecoin - which shows that Crypto currencies have arrived.

Ripple is interesting, but I don't fully understand it. A decentralised p2p iou exchange.

 

[Idaho]

It strikes me that proper money is fundamentally kept valuable and stable by its adoption by governments. Sterling is the solely acceptable currency of the UK government -- it's what they pay people in and it's what they demand payment in (principally in the form of tax). That's half a trillion pounds' worth of value a year going each way guaranteed. The rest of the economy could choose to adopt something else, but when 20% of the GDP is already being traded by a single player in a single currency, it makes sense for everybody else to follow.

Until another currency has a similar heavyweight adopter, it is never going to have significant purchase (in either sense of the word).

You are saying that the UK government acts as a "market maker" in that sense. Offering to buy and sell at stable rates.

 

[camouflage]

I don't know what that means. A use value is something inherent to a commodity such that if it were taken off market it would still exist - a coat for example. Bitcoins have no such value do they?

What is the use-value of an entry in a ledger? They have a use-value, don't confuse material with data.

 

[camouflage]

nope. at least with a block of gold, you can do something with it in practical terms, even if it has no worth as a medium for exchange any longer.

The power consumption aspect has been touched upon by several posters earlier when discussing mining and suchlike - this does strike me as fundamentally wrong - spunking a real world commodity on something that is arguaebly ethemeral.use yer leccy to smelt some Alumina into Aluminium and you have a tangible useful product.

This is a big fuck-off cathedral. It's only function is to serve a value system, real stone, real energy spent doing this. Still, it gave the masons and architects something to do, and indeed a living. Jury's still out as to whether the values at the heart of all this are of any real material use to anyone obviously.

 

[butchersapron]

What is the use-value of an entry in a ledger? They have a use-value, don't confuse material with data.

I think you've managed to slide on by the point. To regulate/administer/be an economy bitcoin will need have some connection to use-value (value being composed of use value and exchange value). If it's only tie is to the latter then it a) can't regulate an economy and b) will be tied wholly to value production by capital. It's almost the same as the credit problem you were unable to deal with.

 

[Idaho]

You are saying that currencies need some intrinsic use value? I don't think gbp has that. Just exchange value.

 

[fredfelt]

I think you've managed to slide on by the point. To regulate/administer/be an economy bitcoin will need have some connection to use-value (value being composed of use value and exchange value). If it's only tie is to the latter then it a) can't regulate an economy and b) will be tied wholly to value production by capital. It's almost the same as the credit problem you were unable to deal with.

Surely that's no different from notes and coins. They have no use value - only exchange value.


Anyway - I don't think anyone here expect Bitcoins will ever be a big enough part of the economy as to make any real difference to the economy. They well may need to be regulated but the purpose of that regulation will not be to impact on public finance.

 

[butchersapron]

You are saying that currencies need some intrinsic use value? I don't think gbp has that. Just exchange value.

No, i'm saying that this geegaw has no connection to the production of use-value and is going to be regulated as a result by money that does have such a relation.

 

[camouflage]

I think you've managed to slide on by the point. To regulate/administer/be an economy bitcoin will need have some connection to use-value (value being composed of use value and exchange value). If it's only tie is to the latter then it a) can't regulate an economy and b) will be tied wholly to value production by capital. It's almost the same as the credit problem you were unable to deal with.

Yes, you have me at a disadvantage sir, you are saying a form of information has no use-value. I am at a loss and do not know how to respond.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, i'm saying that this geegaw has no connection to the production of use-value and is going to be regulated as a result by money that does have such a relation.

It is connected to that use-value as soon as two parties agree to use it for an exchange.

 

[Idaho]

What relation does the Bermudian dollar have to the production of use value?

 

[butchersapron]

Surely that's no different from notes and coins. They have no use value - only exchange value.


Anyway - I don't think anyone here expect Bitcoins will ever be a big enough part of the economy as to make any real difference to the economy. They well may need to be regulated but the purpose of that regulation will not be to impact on public finance.

My point wasn't that they are rubbish because they have ho inherent use value, but that they have no connection to value-production and they don't even have an inherent use-value as a potential saving grace.

I'm not sure, camoflage alternates between saying it's the rational way to administer a global social-democratic society (or that it at least has the potential to) to saying it's just a thing he likes talking about.

 

[butchersapron]

It is connected to that use-value as soon as two parties agree to use it for an exchange.

Tell how such an exchange produces use-value.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Tell how such an exchange produces use-value.

It doesn't produce use-value. It produces the connection between the currency and the value it represents. Fiat currency such as pound sterling has zero use value. Even things like gold have minimal use value - that's what makes them attractive as use for currency.

Of course you can argue that any currency gains a use value once it is sufficiently fetishised - which is why I don't think use/exchange value is necessarily the best way to look at this.

 

[camouflage]

My point wasn't that they are rubbish because they have ho inherent use value, but that they have no connection to value-production and they don't even have an inherent use-value as a potential saving grace.

I'm not sure, camoflage alternates between saying it's the rational way to administer a global social-democratic society (or that it at least has the potential to) to saying it's just a thing he likes talking about.

Um, I actually said no such thing re the former, pls quote where you believe I did. The latter is certainly true.

 

[butchersapron]

What relation does the Bermudian dollar have to the production of use value?

It's almost as if having little relation means that this dollar is then regulated by a wider larger economy that is tied to use-value production isn't it?

Btw, these last few posts directed at me have mistook specific currencies for money, and money in a world market.

 

[butchersapron]

It doesn't produce use-value. It produces the connection between the currency and the value it represents. Fiat currency such as pound sterling has zero use value. Even things like gold have minimal use value - that's what makes them attractive as use for currency.

Right, and what point am i making? And what am i making it about? What aspect of value?

 

[butchersapron]

Um, I actually said no such thing re the former, pls quote where you believe I did. The latter is certainly true.

Here - you flagrantly express the idea that bitcoin can run the world economy don't you?

I am interested in interesting conversations about bitcoin (that interest me anyway), I just find it pointless seeing the same old criticisms trotted out by people who think the're the first to cry Tulip or whatever and betray that they haven't quite grasped the implications of this technology that are worth considering for better or worse. As a social democrat I'd like to try and envision how mixed-economies and welfare states can thrive in a world of crypto-currencies, so excuse me if I tend to roll my eyes at those still not getting how a world economy can run on only 21 million units or express their offence at people having crazy money making schemes, as if this is only just now the invention of money and credit itself.

 

[Idaho]

You seem to be suggesting that national currencies are more connected to use value than btc. Whereas we seem to be saying to you that national currencies are no more fundamentally connected to use value, but are just more widely accepted as exchange value.

 

[fredfelt]

My point wasn't that they are rubbish because they have ho inherent use value, but that they have no connection to value-production and they don't even have an inherent use-value as a potential saving grace.

I'm not sure, camoflage alternates between saying it's the rational way to administer a global social-democratic society (or that it at least has the potential to) to saying it's just a thing he likes talking about.

They do currently have connection to value production. Limited, and mostly for drugs but it's there.

I've mentioned this before, but in my mind the most interesting thing about this is that a payment system, indeed a global system, has been established on a peer to peer basis without any need for established institutions. This has never been done before. It may not amount to anything much but it's certainly an achievement to be noted. Especially as the payment system has different merits to established payment systems and therefore may well find its place alongside other systems.

 

[butchersapron]

You seem to be suggesting that national currencies are more connected to use value than btc. Whereas we seem to be saying to you that national currencies are no more fundamentally connected to use value, but are just more widely accepted as exchange value.

Are they not more connected to the production of use-value then? In the real world i mean? Have i got that wrong?

 

[fredfelt]

Here - you flagrantly express the idea that bitcoin can run the world economy don't you?

To be fair that post sounds more like an exercise in thought, rather than an expression that it actually will run the world economy.

I am interested in interesting conversations about bitcoin (that interest me anyway)... As a social democrat I'd like to try and envision how mixed-economies and welfare states can thrive in a world of crypto-currencies,

 

[butchersapron]

So we have three responses:

1) it's not tied to value production, so what?
2) It is tied to minor value production
3) It's inherently tied to use-value

That sound about right?