[ninetenfour]

Which is why BTC is an asset and not a currency.

Currencies need stability of value so that everyone doesn't have to update their prices ever few hours: https://simplicable.com/new/money

But maybe in the new world, all prices can be in digital and thus ever changing?

[alias_neo]

Would pricing in another unit cause more issues or solve issues?

If customers paid a conversion to some unit each time, and conversion is determined at point of sale. One customer may pay 100pBTC for a loaf of bread, and another may pay 101pBTC.

Does that help, or make things worse?

[ninetenfour]

You want stability. There are many ways to achieve that.

Your example above shows a 1% swing -- which is nothing. Yesterday BTC dropped by 14-18% depending on how you define it.

Imaging buying a Tesla and you budgeted for $40K but today it jumped $45K. That would throw off your plans and you wouldn't probably buy it, hoping for things to change. This means that the thing you are using for the transaction is actually preventing commerce because now timing matters. This is a hinderance to commerce and those using it will not have the liquidity/dynamic economy as compared to those using a stable currency.

This is a sign you are not using a currency for the transaction but rather an asset.

Now USD is stable in parts because it is accepted widely and everything is denominated in it. If everything was denominated in BTC, then it would have similar stability. Basically the more things are denominated in a particular currency/asset, the more stable it becomes.

[alias_neo]

Thanks for explaining, that makes sense.

[bufferoverflow]

So by your strange definition unstable currencies are not currencies. Is Bolivar not a currency then?

[ninetenfour]

> Is Bolivar not a currency then?

It doesn't meet the requirements of a good currency. There is hyper inflation and they have redenominated it a few times now and are planning on doing it again.

Is a boat with a huge hole in its hull a good boat? Technically it is probably a boat, but it isn't what one would consider a good and desirable boat and it doesn't allow one to do what one can usually do with boats.

This is the same with BTC. You can call it a currency, but if you use it as a currency it doesn't currently exhibit the properties that one wants from a currency.

[bufferoverflow]

> It doesn't meet the requirements of a good currency

Aaand you just moved the goal posts. Notice how you switched your argument from "currency" to "good currency". So dishonest.

[ninetenfour]

> Aaand you just moved the goal posts. Notice how you switched your argument from "currency" to "good currency". So dishonest.

I think you want a binary world where things are either A or B and not somewhere in between. BTC is being used as a currency in El Salvador and it is government mandated as a currency. Thus it is a currency by that definition. But my argument is that it isn't a good currency based on its properties (which I listed some and also linked to an article on desirable principles of a currency), rather it has the qualities of an asset.

I think I haven't changed what I am arguing, but I think you misunderstood my argument as something much more simplistic than what I was actually saying.

[chucksta]

then you used bad language

>Which is why BTC is an asset and not a currency.

Is a pretty straight forward sentence

[ninetenfour]

Are you using BTC as a currency? What was the last thing you bought using BTC directly?

Does it meet the 10 characteristics here?https://simplicable.com/new/money

I think that few are using BTC as a currency because it doesn't make sense as a currency, rather 99.9% of people are using it as a speculative investment asset.

[q1w2]

If it's not a good currency, then it's not much of an asset either.