Debate HN: Is Bitcoin a currency or a commodity?
I read the recent forbes[1] article on Bitcoin and it made me wonder how someone could miss the point of Bitcoin so much. This lead to a particularly interesting debate on an IRC channel I'm on about whether or not Bitcoin is actually a currency. The pro side of the fence felt that as they could use it as a means of purchase it was good enough to be a currency. The anti-side felt that as it wasn't protected by law, it wasn't, and that it's volatility was more associated with a commodity such as gold.
What do you think? Is Bitcoin a currency, a commodity or neither?
[1] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2013/04/16/bitcoin-whatever-it-is-its-not-money/
53 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 64.5 ms ] threadBitCoin only has a use because of a value associated with it and so it is a currency.
Bitcoin has some utility value in being a digital good that you can reliably exchange with someone, essentially instantly, over the internet, with no middle-man, for a very low cost.
Sure, this might seem like a trivial value, but I think it's value nonetheless, and overpricing of something like that is not unprecedented.
The case I'm tempted to make is that Bitcoin is a commodity useful for secure, private/anonymous interactions. It's virtual sure, but the utility of a bitcoin is clear to its users and it is also inherent to its structure.
In some aspects, I would think that would moderate the pricing, since at the moment it's not good for that much else for most people other than speculation and cashing in/out as needed.
More merchants via instant-USD-conversion will certainly increase the popularity of bitcoin, but won't help at all in giving it a moderate value in tangible goods and services.
As for your particular examples; commodities have always been used as a means of purchase whether by way of trade, barter or as a currency substitute (gold, silver, etc). The trade of commodities are protected by law. And currency volatility ranges with some currencies being highly stable and others hugely volatile, more so than most commodities.
So trying to bucket bitcoin like this doesn't seem to be worthwhile. I think the better discussion would be whether or not bitcoin should actually hold any value.
An interesting point. Do you think that it should hold any value?
To me it is irrational to put money behind bitcoin, it's a bubble like the Dutch Tulip Mania from the 1600's. No reason for it, and it won't last.
Just FYI, there are 1298 merchants on that page :)
I'll sell you my car for a sack of turds, assuming someone will exchange it for $15K and hand me the cash first.
This proves to me that Bitcoin definitely could become a useful currency, but for this to happen it will have to become more stable. Until that happens, it will remain a highly speculative commodity with a neverending cycle of bubble and crash.
Which doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. It just means that saying "Does it satisfy criteria X" doesn't help unless you're deliberately talking in metaphor.
In one way, it's like asking "Is the internet a series of tubes, or a superhighway?"
The real uses and pitfalls are emerging, indicating that this is a technology with huge potential. If you want to think of a special use, really dig in and get to know what makes bitcoin bitcoin.
In fact I'd say that's what bitcoin is, digital gold. Just as gold still remains an important holding for central banks, I have to wonder if at some point a second digital/crypto currency will be developed that somehow uses bitcoin as its stable base/commodity but which solves the issues that all the economists are whining about.
I can imagine that in future Bitcoins can be used as a "reserve" currency that backs another currency
Bitcoin has these issued baked into the protocol.
Second problem, it requires a major shift in the motivation of many adopters (anti-fiat, anti-fractional reserve banking).
Also, there are two general groups of commodities: renewable and nonrenewable. To be specific, we're talking about a nonrenewable commodity here.
Once the law steps in - and it will - bitcoin is whatever the hell they say it is, in a court of law, which is the only place these definitions really matter. FINCEN has an opinion already, but that's just one part of one government. The consensus will take time to settle. For my money while mining is still possible, bitcoin is a commodity. After that it's something new, like a currency, but with a permanently inflexible monetary policy. That's never happened before, so what it will be, we just don't know.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/us-regulator-bitc...
1) Medium of exchange. - Can be used to buy goods, thus avoiding barter
2) Store of value - Sell your crops today for money, knowing the money can be used in the future to buy fertilizer in the future
3) Unit of Account - Money must be divisible
4) Measure of Value - Can be used to understand the relative values of dissimilar things.
Given the high volatility of BitCoins, it is not currently useful as money. It is not a good store of value nor a good measure of value, and there are a limited number of things that can be bought with bitcoin.
Bitcoin is awesome as an anonymous wire service supported by bitbugs and speculators who are hoping it becomes a currency. Even if it is never useful as money, it may be valuable for a very long time.
If BitCoin can survive long enough to see more widespread adoption of it as a currency that should go a long way towards helping to tamp down the swings in value we currently see occurring.
My question is why would it see widespread adoption? The only reasons I can think of are: it allows anonymous online transactions, has low transaction costs, is not backed by a government, and is interesting on a tech level. I am not sure these reasons are good enough to cause widespread adoption.
Of course a company with monopoly power could force adoption. For instance Bitcoin would take off if your utility companies only accepted bitcoins, but I don't think that is likely.
At the moment, merchants who accept bitcoin set prices natively in USD, and convert bitcoin to USD immediately (or risk currency losses). Bitcoin will become more stable once merchants set prices natively in BTC, regardless of the USD exchange rate. This is the case for example in Europe, where the EUR/USD fluctuations have little effect on the everyday purchasing power. This can realistically happen only once the majority of their expenses (salaries, suppliers, etc.) are also priced natively in BTC. But given that only USD is legal tender by law in the U.S., employees, suppliers and IRS can always refuse your bitcoin, and make the exchange rate an issue.
Another problem in at least the next few years is that a small group of early miners of Bitcoin hold the majority of the money supply. Until they have cashed out, they have the ability to flood the exchange with far more supply than there is demand from new users, making the long-term storage value risky.
Recently, it has also become a popular mechanism to make small, relatively volatile speculative transactions for financial gain.