Ben "Bitcoin" Askren

[Koloth]

I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position so now I will respond with where the mistakes are without calling you names. "Fiat money [...] has no inherent value, but that is usually a characteristic of fiat money, not the definition. [...] Fiat means let it be done in latin and is an official order by legal authority, not agreement (by decree).

Hah, I was right in my suspicion.

Here's where we stand: We have two characteristics shared by paper currencies such as the USD or the Euro, which we wish to apply the label 'fiat money to:

• no (significant) intrinsic value.
• Created, issued and adjusted by governments of nation states as mediums of exchange.

We have the corresponding opposite characteristics shared by cigarettes in jail or spices, which we wish to label as "primitive" or "commodity" money:

• intrinsic value independent of valuation by governing bodies
• not created, issued or adjusted by governments as mediums of exchange

You seem to have been led to believe that the second criterion is for some reason the more important, "defining" characteristic. I not only believe that economic history would disagree with you, but also that we would be wise to adopt the first criterion as the definiens of 'fiat money' as it gets to the heart of why we are interested in having the concepts ("fiat" or "primitive"/"commodity" money) in our vocabulary in the first place. (What users of a currency are interested in, is the stability of its function across time and space: Does this thing - be it a paper bill, a nugget of gold, a jar of spice or a string of characters on a digital storage - allow me to purchase goods I want where and when I want.)

We might also look to ambiguous cases, to clarify our concepts:

Consider A.) a non-personal, transferrable coupon in paper form to purchase something at a specific retailer. (no intrinsic value; not created, issued or adjusted by government) and B.) salt in the holy roman empire of the 12th and 13th centuries (intrinsic value; mined and sold by the "government"). How would we categorize those? As users of the currency we should be interested mainly in the stability of the currency as a holder of value across time and space. A is a significantly less stable holder of value (across time and space) than B. We could term A 'fiat', whereas B should not be called 'fiat'. While in B the medium of exchange - the salt itself - has been "created" by government, that it has value has *not* been created by government.

Paper money is not "fiat" because it - that is the concrete token - has been issued by a government, but because it's value has been created by government/societal agreement.
If the government decided to distribute bottled water as mediums of exchange, it wouldnt be fiat money. Sure, the government would "create" the water bottle, but it wouldnt create it's value, which is intrinsic.
Bitcoin may not have been created or issued by a government, but its value comes from societal agreement to accept it in trade for something that has intrinsic value. As soon as that agreement goes away, so does all value of bitcoin (and you cant even use it to light a fire or insulate your walls as you could with paper money). It is fiat money. (You're free to use the words in whatever way you like or feel is propagandistically beneficial to you, but you'll simply lose the meaning, that people are interested in when talking about these things: the social creation of value.)

Dollars are currency, not money

Yeah. I think I could have left it at this quote
You are obviously interested in definitions, semantics etc. The important thing in these endeavours is to never lose track of ordinary language use of words, or risk confusion and breakdown of communication. If you're seriously interested in academic discussion of these things and not just a consumer of silly bitcoin-youtube-videos I'd suggest you read up on the Carnapian notion of explication as the imho most useful approach to the "definition" of preexisting words. And when in doubt, create new concepts with clearly defined meanings, but, to quote Searle: "You just have to avoid saying things that are obviously false." (Interview: Conversations with History. John Searle, Berkeley 1999, 26:00.)

 

[bubbleboyjones]

There was this handsome poster here named WorldofWarcraft who made a thread years ago BEGGING people to buy Bitcoin when they were selling for $13 each.

Instead, he was ridiculed.. kicked to the curb... Bitcoin is trash, they said... nobody took his advice.

Did he take his own advice? I assume he's worth 'millions' now.

 

[Eric Silva 2.0]

Hah, I was right in my suspicion.

Here's where we stand: We have two characteristics shared by paper currencies such as the USD or the Euro, which we wish to apply the label 'fiat money to:

• no (significant) intrinsic value.
• Created, issued and adjusted by governments of nation states as mediums of exchange.

We have the corresponding opposite characteristics shared by cigarettes in jail or spices, which we wish to label as "primitive" or "commodity" money:

• intrinsic value independent of valuation by governing bodies
• not created, issued or adjusted by governments as mediums of exchange

You seem to have been led to believe that the second criterion is for some reason the more important, "defining" characteristic. I not only believe that economic history would disagree with you, but also that we would be wise to adopt the first criterion as the definiens of 'fiat money' as it gets to the heart of why we are interested in having the concepts ("fiat" or "primitive"/"commodity" money) in our vocabulary in the first place. (What users of a currency are interested in, is the stability of its function across time and space: Does this thing - be it a paper bill, a nugget of gold, a jar of spice or a string of characters on a digital storage - allow me to purchase goods I want where and when I want.)

We might also look to ambiguous cases, to clarify our concepts:

Consider A.) a non-personal, transferrable coupon in paper form to purchase something at a specific retailer. (no intrinsic value; not created, issued or adjusted by government) and B.) salt in the holy roman empire of the 12th and 13th centuries (intrinsic value; mined and sold by the "government"). How would we categorize those? As users of the currency we should be interested mainly in the stability of the currency as a holder of value across time and space. A is a significantly less stable holder of value (across time and space) than B. We could term A 'fiat', whereas B should not be called 'fiat'. While in B the medium of exchange - the salt itself - has been "created" by government, that it has value has *not* been created by government.

Paper money is not "fiat" because it - that is the concrete token - has been issued by a government, but because it's value has been created by government/societal agreement.
If the government decided to distribute bottled water as mediums of exchange, it wouldnt be fiat money. Sure, the government would "create" the water bottle, but it wouldnt create it's value, which is intrinsic.
Bitcoin may not have been created or issued by a government, but its value comes from societal agreement to accept it in trade for something that has intrinsic value. As soon as that agreement goes away, so does all value of bitcoin (and you cant even use it to light a fire or insulate your walls as you could with paper money). It is fiat money. (You're free to use the words in whatever way you like or feel is propagandistically beneficial to you, but you'll simply lose the meaning, that people are interested in when talking about these things: the social creation of value.)



Yeah. I think I could have left it at this quote
You are obviously interested in definitions, semantics etc. The important thing in these endeavours is to never lose track of ordinary language use of words, or risk confusion and breakdown of communication. If you're seriously interested in academic discussion of these things and not just a consumer of silly bitcoin-youtube-videos I'd suggest you read up on the Carnapian notion of explication as the imho most useful approach to the "definition" of preexisting words. And when in doubt, create new concepts with clearly defined meanings, but, to quote Searle: "You just have to avoid saying things that are obviously false." (Interview: Conversations with History. John Searle, Berkeley 1999, 26:00.)

I agree that fiat money would have no intrinsic value hence the reason for fiat. It's not semantics that i'm interested in. I am in favor of clearly defined meanings of words and proper communication. That's the reason i'm going back and forth with you. Where we disagree is with the meaning of fiat (again look up the definition and understand the latin origin). You are using modern language with a modern understanding of economics. I am a "goldbug" slowly morphing into a bitcoin/crypto bug. I understand classical economics and reject Marxist Economics and things like MMT. If you are a believer in fiat currency, MMT, Modern Economic Theory etc..., we will never agree. I don't agree that bitcoin is fiat money (our orignal disagreement) but do agree with you that it isn't backed by anything concrete like gold. I'm not a tech person but techies argue that the technology is the value behind bitcoin and isn't fully understood yet. For the record, what do you think I said which is obviously false? Also, we need to remember the history and problems of fiat currency.....

 

[Koloth]

I agree that fiat money would have no intrinsic value hence the reason for fiat. It's not semantics that i'm interested in. I am in favor of clearly defined meanings of words and proper communication. That's the reason i'm going back and forth with you. Where we disagree is with the meaning of fiat (again look up the definition and understand the latin origin). You are using modern language with a modern understanding of economics. I am a "goldbug" slowly morphing into a bitcoin/crypto bug. I understand classical economics and reject Marxist Economics and things like MMT. If you are a believer in fiat currency, MMT, Modern Economic Theory etc..., we will never agree. I don't agree that bitcoin is fiat money (our orignal disagreement) but do agree with you that it isn't backed by anything concrete like gold. I'm not a tech person but techies argue that the technology is the value behind bitcoin and isn't fully understood yet. For the record, what do you think I said which is obviously false? Also, we need to remember the history and problems of fiat currency.....
View attachment 823039

I'm sorry, I must have failed to make myself clear.
I have not stated any opinion about the merits of fiat money compared to commodity money, or about the merits of cryptocurrency compared to state-issued paper money or gold-backed currencies. In fact I dont have any opinions on these matters, that I would feel reasonably confident in stating (although it seems reasonable that metal fiat money was an improvement over primitive money ). My point is simply this, that, as a matter of conceptual precision and clarity, cryptocurrencies are fiat money. That does not imply any value judgement to me.

I have now explained - more than once - why cryptocurrencies are clear cases of fiat money. Ignoring my reasoning by pointing to fucking wikipedia is laughable - even more so since you appear not to have read the entry yourself, otherwise you would have noticed that in the very first two sentences the lack of intrinsic value is presented as necessary condition, whereas the government issuing the currency is merely a frequent but unnecessary characteristic. (cf. also the paper by Goldberg that is given as a reference in that wikipedia article you yourself sent me). Your own source is agreeing with me and disagreeing with you.

So, here is where we are:

I gave a definition of "fiat money" according to which cryptocurrencies are part of the extension of that concept. This is in fact the very definition used in the wikipedia article and its references that you sent me.
You did not deny that cryptocurrencies fall under that definiens but have instead advanced a different one and thus created a new concept deviating from ordinary language use and the sources you yourself have quoted.
You have made no attempt to argue why your definition is better or why your concept of "fiat money" is more useful than the common one, which I use, nor have you engaged at all with my arguments in favor of using the concept in this way.
All you do is repeat without argument what you have said and then proceed to talk about what you perceive as benefits of cryptocurriences and problems with state-issues currencies - a topic on which I have no opinions.

I honestly cant even see what you would gain by insisting that the words dont mean what they mean...
You ... you do understand, that recognizing that cryptocurrencies are fiat money would still allow you to favor them over different fiat money ... right? None of the things, I suspect you care about, hang on bitcoin being fiat money lol...

 

[nostradumbass]

Tracking what the $1200 stimulus check would be worth if used to buy bitcoin on April, 15th 2020.

Or you could have put it into damn near any stock at that point and it would have seen a greater increase. If you'd bought Tesla stock with it, you'd have like $8200.

Bitcoin is another diseased symptom of capitalism. Assigning value arbitrarily to something inherently worthless out of thin air. Shitbags getting rich off doing nothing other than buying an invisible ghost coin will just bring forward the revolution.

Lol at wanting to revolt because you're pissed about missing out on an investment. Why is it the people who bitch the most about other people being rich are the same people who hold up the line at convenience stores trading in their scratch offs for more scratch offs?

 

[Eric Silva 2.0]

I'm sorry, I must have failed to make myself clear.
I have not stated any opinion about the merits of fiat money compared to commodity money, or about the merits of cryptocurrency compared to state-issued paper money or gold-backed currencies. In fact I dont have any opinions on these matters, that I would feel reasonably confident in stating (although it seems reasonable that metal fiat money was an improvement over primitive money ). My point is simply this, that, as a matter of conceptual precision and clarity, cryptocurrencies are fiat money. That does not imply any value judgement to me.

I have now explained - more than once - why cryptocurrencies are clear cases of fiat money. Ignoring my reasoning by pointing to fucking wikipedia is laughable - even more so since you appear not to have read the entry yourself, otherwise you would have noticed that in the very first two sentences the lack of intrinsic value is presented as necessary condition, whereas the government issuing the currency is merely a frequent but unnecessary characteristic. (cf. also the paper by Goldberg that is given as a reference in that wikipedia article you yourself sent me). Your own source is agreeing with me and disagreeing with you.

So, here is where we are:

I gave a definition of "fiat money" according to which cryptocurrencies are part of the extension of that concept. This is in fact the very definition used in the wikipedia article and its references that you sent me.
You did not deny that cryptocurrencies fall under that definiens but have instead advanced a different one and thus created a new concept deviating from ordinary language use and the sources you yourself have quoted.
You have made no attempt to argue why your definition is better or why your concept of "fiat money" is more useful than the common one, which I use, nor have you engaged at all with my arguments in favor of using the concept in this way.
All you do is repeat without argument what you have said and then proceed to talk about what you perceive as benefits of cryptocurriences and problems with state-issues currencies - a topic on which I have no opinions.

I honestly cant even see what you would gain by insisting that the words dont mean what they mean...
You ... you do understand, that recognizing that cryptocurrencies are fiat money would still allow you to favor them over different fiat money ... right? None of the things, I suspect you care about, hang on bitcoin being fiat money lol...

Edit: I just noticed you again

"The term fiat derives from the latin word Fiat meaning let it be done used in the sense of an order, decree, or resolution.
That's the most important part of the wikipedia article. The rest of the article describes characteristics of fiat currency, especially the lack of intrinsic value. Fiat money/currency is made by decree (law) and not consensus or agreement as you stated in the previous article. To your point here that is repeated in the article but wrong. Here are a couple of sources to understand fiat. I will agree you use a popular but wrong way of talking about money. There is no law or rule to use cryptocurrency hence it isn't fiat. The second search is a simple "is cryptocurrency fiat money?" As you see just about all say no as they compare the two. To your last point it's not insisting crypto is or isn't that I have something to gain. I'm a trader for a living who specializes in precious metals. I've been doing it for 20 years and trading crypto for over 4 years (I also trade stocks, I manage 3 portfolios).
https://www.google.com/search?q=fia...69i57j69i60.3436j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+...rome..69i57.5843j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[Koloth]

"The term fiat derives from the latin word Fiat meaning let it be done used in the sense of an order, decree, or resolution.
That's the most important part of the wikipedia article. The rest of the article describes characteristics of fiat currency, especially the lack of intrinsic value. Fiat money/currency is made by decree (law) and not consensus or agreement as you stated in the previous article. To your point here that is repeated in the article but wrong. Here are a couple of sources to understand fiat. I will agree you use a popular but wrong way of talking about money. There is no law or rule to use cryptocurrency hence it isn't fiat. The second search is a simple "is cryptocurrency fiat money?" As you see just about all say no as they compare the two. To your last point it's not insisting crypto is or isn't that I have something to gain. I'm a trader for a living who specializes in precious metals. I've been doing it for 20 years and trading crypto for over 4 years (I also trade stocks, I manage 3 portfolios).
https://www.google.com/search?q=fia...69i57j69i60.3436j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+...rome..69i57.5843j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Alright, seems we have made no progress at all.
You're a fucking dumbass, you dont engage with the argument, honestly, you're probably not educated enough to even understand it. You failed to understand the fucking wikipedia article you yourself sent me and when I pointed it out, you switched to even less authoritative results from google Now you've introduced yet another characteristic.

Then, like the lobotomized moron you seemingly are, you repeat your google translation of 'fiat' as if that had any significance. Shit, I am so fucking certain that you dont even understand latin. (Can't honestly claim I do either, but I at least had six years of the shit in school.) 'Let it be done' might be a good translation of 'fiat' in certain contexts in literature, but it is very much not accurate or literal. The closest thing in english would be something like 'it be' (the rudimentary conjugation of English doesnt allow one to express without ambiguities what in German could easily be expressed as 'Es sei' or in French as 'ca soit'). There is no reference at all linguistically to a doing/making/granting-party. And it doesnt even matter, because fucking etymological considerations are a horrible path towards conceptual clarification anyway.)

I'm done with you. This special kind of smug american ignorance you just cant cure lol.

 

[Eric Silva 2.0]

You wrote "cryptocurrency is fiat money my man"
I went back to the definition and etymology of the world fiat because everything you are saying is based on your lack of understanding of one word. Don't worry you are not alone, there are many to keep you company. People with failed ideas need to obfuscate language to help failed arguments. You make good points in your examples when you aren't using bad language. Defining fiat (money) the closest example of a definition or synonym would be the word decree. I tried to give you examples to show you but you are set on something you probably learned in school. I hope the diplomas on the wall make you feel good at night. Go watch a video of Nouriel Roubini on Bitcoin, LOL. Classical economics is almost dead in the world and you are a good example of that. You seem somewhat smart but angry and arrogant. You just refuse to understand the correct definition of one word. Cryptocurrency is fiat, LOL (original argument). You are an idiot. I tried but i'm done as well. Happy Holidays to you!
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiat

 

[SSgt Dickweed]

 

[DarkneT]

Ahhh I wish I knew what the fuck a Bitcoin was and how to invest in it.

some weirdo from high school shows off his statistics on Instagram weekly and he had put 3k into Bitcoin and now he has over 40 grand..

Im here glueing bits of wood together
Can someone help