My dear fellow,
I have no objection whatsoever to beginning with the question of what money is. Indeed, one must know what a thing is before one can sensibly discuss whether it succeeds or fails at being that thing.
The difficulty is that BTC is not the subject because it is money. BTC is the subject because it claims to be money.
Hayek spoke of competing monies, but competition requires that the competitors actually perform the function. Money is not merely an object people speculate upon. A racehorse and a statue may both have four legs, but only one belongs at the track.
The question was whether BTC fulfils the role of money. Does it serve as a widely accepted medium of exchange? Does it facilitate trade rather than impede it? Does it lower transaction costs rather than raise them? Does it function in commerce rather than merely in discussion forums and price charts?
If the answer is no, then appealing to definitions of money does not rescue BTC. It merely provides the standard against which BTC must be measured.
So I am perfectly content to discuss what money is. What I find curious is the assumption that once we define money, BTC automatically qualifies. That is rather like defining a bird and then insisting a brick can fly because it was present during the conversation.
The original point concerned the defects of BTC. Bringing in dollars, investments, savings vehicles, and other unrelated matters does not answer that point. It merely changes the scenery while leaving the argument exactly where it was.
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 6, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2063044703613001967
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5399
I have no objection whatsoever to beginning with the question of what money is. Indeed, one must know what a thing is before one can sensibly discuss whether it succeeds or fails at being that thing.
The difficulty is that BTC is not the subject because it is money. BTC is the subject because it claims to be money.
Hayek spoke of competing monies, but competition requires that the competitors actually perform the function. Money is not merely an object people speculate upon. A racehorse and a statue may both have four legs, but only one belongs at the track.
The question was whether BTC fulfils the role of money. Does it serve as a widely accepted medium of exchange? Does it facilitate trade rather than impede it? Does it lower transaction costs rather than raise them? Does it function in commerce rather than merely in discussion forums and price charts?
If the answer is no, then appealing to definitions of money does not rescue BTC. It merely provides the standard against which BTC must be measured.
So I am perfectly content to discuss what money is. What I find curious is the assumption that once we define money, BTC automatically qualifies. That is rather like defining a bird and then insisting a brick can fly because it was present during the conversation.
The original point concerned the defects of BTC. Bringing in dollars, investments, savings vehicles, and other unrelated matters does not answer that point. It merely changes the scenery while leaving the argument exactly where it was.
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 6, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2063044703613001967
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5399
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment