With real money you can take out a loan. Kinda the whole point of money, it represents value that is owed.
While crypto loans would be technically possible it would be a foolish thing to do since it’s effectively a short on something that could increase in value. Real money has a small but steady (well, ideally) inflation so you can be confident in taking out a loan and not having to worry about the currency doing something crazy like doubling in value resulting in you owing double the value than you initially borrowed. This is not the case for crypto so it’s simply not a viable currency for financing anything.
Since it’s not viable for financing, it’s not a real currency and never will be. Like is someone supposed to take out a business loan in real currency, convert it to crypto, pay someone else who would then have to convert it back to real money so they can pay back their loan? Why would people want to do all of these conversions back and forth to and from crypto? Because they like the risk of the value dropping for the brief time they’re holding onto it?
They only “use it” to transfer the funds. Once they have it, they cash it in. No criminal is keeping it in crypto form. They use it the same way they use Apple gift cards.
An easy way to tell if it’s “real” money or not is to see if goods are ever priced directly in it, where it isn’t just directly indexed to the exchange rate of an established currency.
Hint: Even places that accept crypto payments don’t do this. The crypto price fluctuates based on the moment by moment exchange rate to the local currency.
sumerians denoted everything in silver shekels but trade was done will all manner of commodities, including barley grains. your theory of money sounds like it comes from the Adam Smith cult.
Are barley grains a currency? I’m not understanding your argument here. In a practical sense, cryptocurrencies are far too volatile to use as a currency and the “stable” coins are tied to things like the US dollar. Well, I should say allegedly tied because “stable” coins like tether haven’t been audited to actually prove it’s tied to the underlying.
Can I ask what the point of arguing semantics here is?
Maybe you have put in the effort to figure out all the avenues to use bitcoin to pay for things, but its not easy and you sound more like a drug addict scrounging for metal and bottles, and then wondering why noone else is interested in your hustle.
Why do you care if people call bitcoin real or not anyways? For most people its not real, for you I guess it is, does that make sense?
Crypto is an un-backed and unregulated security – the value of which fluctuates wildly. Turns out most people don’t like being paid in something that can drastically lose value in the span of hours.
The few people and institutions that accept crypto as payment either immediately convert it back into real money or are “investors” treating it like the security it actually is.
what’s the fake money for criminals
Cryptocurrency
that’s not fake money, and it isn’t “for” criminals. it’s real, and that’s why criminals use it.
With real money you can take out a loan. Kinda the whole point of money, it represents value that is owed.
While crypto loans would be technically possible it would be a foolish thing to do since it’s effectively a short on something that could increase in value. Real money has a small but steady (well, ideally) inflation so you can be confident in taking out a loan and not having to worry about the currency doing something crazy like doubling in value resulting in you owing double the value than you initially borrowed. This is not the case for crypto so it’s simply not a viable currency for financing anything.
Since it’s not viable for financing, it’s not a real currency and never will be. Like is someone supposed to take out a business loan in real currency, convert it to crypto, pay someone else who would then have to convert it back to real money so they can pay back their loan? Why would people want to do all of these conversions back and forth to and from crypto? Because they like the risk of the value dropping for the brief time they’re holding onto it?
your standards aren’t based on historical fact.
They only “use it” to transfer the funds. Once they have it, they cash it in. No criminal is keeping it in crypto form. They use it the same way they use Apple gift cards.
tally sticks were debt tokens. people used them as money out of convenience, and would exchange them for cash if it was possible.
An easy way to tell if it’s “real” money or not is to see if goods are ever priced directly in it, where it isn’t just directly indexed to the exchange rate of an established currency.
Hint: Even places that accept crypto payments don’t do this. The crypto price fluctuates based on the moment by moment exchange rate to the local currency.
sumerians denoted everything in silver shekels but trade was done will all manner of commodities, including barley grains. your theory of money sounds like it comes from the Adam Smith cult.
Are barley grains a currency? I’m not understanding your argument here. In a practical sense, cryptocurrencies are far too volatile to use as a currency and the “stable” coins are tied to things like the US dollar. Well, I should say allegedly tied because “stable” coins like tether haven’t been audited to actually prove it’s tied to the underlying.
people use all kinds of things as money. none of it is fake, except counterfeits, but even they have found use as currency.
barley grains have been used as currency, yes.
tally sticks denoted debt in Britain, and were used directly as money out of convenience, but they were themselves denoted in roman currency iirc.
Can I ask what the point of arguing semantics here is?
Maybe you have put in the effort to figure out all the avenues to use bitcoin to pay for things, but its not easy and you sound more like a drug addict scrounging for metal and bottles, and then wondering why noone else is interested in your hustle.
Why do you care if people call bitcoin real or not anyways? For most people its not real, for you I guess it is, does that make sense?
if someone is making a semantic argument it’s those who won’t accept that Bitcoin is money as surely as any other form of money we have ever used.
So latin American currencies are not real money. We already knew but wow harsh reality
If you’re “invested” in cryptogoboligook and you’re not ripping someone off–guess what?–you’re the mark.
Regardless, you can generally use money to buy things.
You can’t buy anything with crypto because it’s 15 years later, and “mass adoption” is never happening. It’s “fake money”.
since people treat crypto as money, it is money.
Crypto is an un-backed and unregulated security – the value of which fluctuates wildly. Turns out most people don’t like being paid in something that can drastically lose value in the span of hours.
The few people and institutions that accept crypto as payment either immediately convert it back into real money or are “investors” treating it like the security it actually is.
most money throughout history has been “unbacked” and unregulated
Regardless of your personal opinions about cryptocurrency, that is absolutely what this post is referring to by saying fake money for criminal.
they’re not opinions, but I’m sure you’re right about the post.
Go throw crypto at a stripper then!
they probably don’t accept tally sticks or turquoise as payment either. were those fake money too?
Yes.
great. live in your bigotry.
The fuck are you talking about?
I can only imagine he means American currency, and the anti-counterfeiting technology embedded in it. It’s the most popular currency in the world.
Oh, bitcoin? The accounting package that requires the power of a small nation to maintain it? Well, I guess that works, too.
the bitcoin blockchain doesn’t require all that power. nothing about the code dictates that. it’s a social phenomenon, just like the markets.
The bitcoin blockchain requires more power than any other blockchain while providing less features.
The only outstanding feature of bitcoin is it’s price.
the bitcoin blockchain doesn’t require any power. any miner can stop, the blockchain would have less power, and still continue to function.
Yes. It does. No transaction can occur without proof of work being performed.
Marginally less power, but nowhere near the reduction needed to compete with a PoS blockchain.
For example Ethereum PoS uses 2,600 MWh per year (= a single 1MW windfarm). Bitcoin uses 53,000x more energy than Ethereum.
the whole network could be run on two raspberry pis. there is no minimum power requirement in the protocol.
No. Then someone would buy 3 raspberry pis and claim all the bitcoin.
Bitcoin was a great idea in 2008 but in 2024 it has been overshadowed by other blockchains in every single dimension except for market cap.
the protocol says those 3 pis have consensus. that’s how the network is supposed to function.