Bitcoin & Litecoin: Are these two the Dollar and Pound of Digital Money?

Pierre Vigoureux

Pierre Vigoureux

Mise à jour il y a 242w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 1.6k et de vues de réponses 1.4m

No, they do not relate to "dollar and pound" in the context of the question.

The US dollar and the UK pound are considered "FORTE" et "DIFFICILE" currencies, and are issued by a POLITICAL entity.

Bitcoins and Litecoins are currencies, issued by a SOCIAL entity

They are not "strong" and "hard" currencies the way that dollars and pounds are - and that is the difference. That difference relates to the difference between POLITICAL and SOCIAL.

A CURRENCY is a medium of economic exchange. You can have economic exchange without a currency, so we need to first look at the other more fundamental medium of exchange, or PROPERTY.

What confuses people however, is that the first currencies were based on property: MEDIA et / ou TREASURE.

* A gold coin when exchanged for silver coins can incorporate in the TRADE both the CURRENCY value, of the TRADE and the MARKET value of the MEDIA - the intrinsic value to the BUYER of the metal in the coin.

* The Romans paid their soldiers in salt. The market value of the salt was ONLY the value of the MEDIA.

TREASURE: is PROPERTY whose MARKET value relates MORE to how it is PERCEIVED than how it is USED.

Bitcoins are like a treasure in that respect. Note how recently the "value" of bitcoins has dropped, because of the PERCEPTION that they have lost value.

Bitcoins, however, unlike TREASURE, are a SOCIAL currency. This is a CURRENCY that is not backed up by an external political authority. The relevant "authority" is agreed upon by both parties.

The trade can still be made in a currency because it is the PERCEIVED value of the currency that maintains its REAL value.

* Roman gold and silver coins after the fall of Rome, because they are not backed up by the POLITICAL entity of Rome, have only a MEDIA value, but STILL can be used AS a SOCIAL currency.

* King Arthur can still require his knights to pay their taxes in gold coins no longer backed up by the Roman Empire, because they have a STANDARD MEDIA value, and when they are used to pay taxes, they ARE a POLITICAL currency.

* Gemstones, because they are not a STANDARD of exchange, are not a SOCIAL currency, but a TREASURE.

* Cowrie shells, having no intrinsic value, but having a standard value, set either by a POLITICAL authority, or by a SOCIAL convention, are a type of currency.

Leggi:  What is it like to earn 50 LPA in India?

So when we look at BITCOINS and LITECOINS, what we are looking at is a type of SOCIAL currency that has NEITHER

political authority or media value.

Note that dollars and pounds, by virtue of their being accepted by people OUTSIDE of their respective political associations, also

as King Arthur has with Roman coins with precious metals in their construction, but NOT with the copper or brass coins

have a SOCIAL currency value. Thus the confusion betweeen "money" and "currency". Petrodollars held by non-US taxpayers not resident in the US have "value" to other non-US residents and non-US taxpayers because somewhere in the ECONOMIC NETWORK are people that are US residents and US taxpayers.

There are now so many US dollars "outside of the US economy" that if they were DUMPED back into the US, the US economy would crash.

That is the SOCIAL currency RISK of currencies like Bitcoins.

If a Bitcoin is PERCEIVED to have a significantly lower value, it has.

En revanche, Accélération quantitative is a POLITICAL guarantee of future value. The state prints more money in the expectation that it will be used without decreasing the SOCIAL value.

All currencies have a market value. If King Arthur starts stamping out Roman copper coins, and enforcing the trade value of copper coins in exchange for silver and gold coins, then the old copper money is a currency again.

The value of currency is defined by HARD and STRONG.

The HARD value is that it is widely accepted SOCIALLY. That is why Bitcoins do not equate to metal coins - the "hard value" is intrinsic to the definition.

For people who CAN use them, they are HARD. This is why some people are suggesting that they could replace political currencies - which they can't.

You could be bitcoin rich, but you would still have to convert them to local currencies to buy a meal.

* The value of a Roman copper coin before the Empire fails is that you could get a meal with it in ANY part of the Empire. Roman coins were always HARD, even when inflated in value - as they ALWAYS were.

The STRONG value is that is consistently accepted at a standard value, no matter how often it is used in exchange. That is why Bitcoins do not equate to metal coins - the "strong value" does not exist, because there is no "standard of value" that continues from transaction to transaction. The value for the new owner is just as SPECULATIVE as for the previous.

Leggi:  Pour les appareils compatibles NFC, qui contacte la banque émettrice pour signaler une transaction?

* The value of a Roman silver coin AFTER the Empire fails is that people in BOTH Britain and Gaul CONTINUE to use it AS a currency, Roman silver and gold coins were always STRONG.

* If the British and Gauls continue to trade in Roman brass quarters, and do not PRINT or STAMP more NEW MONEY than the value of the exchange, both coins can have a STRONG value.

Note that ALL currencies REAL value (in terms of goods and services) is set by more of a SOCIAL convention than a political one.

So the fundamental difference between the SOCIAL currency established by mutual agreement in bitcoins, and the POLITICAL currency established by political entities

is how the COINS are MINTED, and how they relate to the value of REAL goods and services.

Real coins: initially based on MEDIA or TREASURE, but given a political aspect by their PROSCRIBED use to pay taxes and wages.

Real coins are minted by a MINT, a state entity, that guarantees a political value. In some currencies, that "paper value" is specified by an equivalence in precious metals. The British pound was originally supposed to have been worth at least one pound of silver metal. The US "greenback" was originally supposed to have been worth at least the value of the silver in a silver dollar.

The precious metal in the coins is mined by miners, who both pay the state in taxes, and are paid in currencies in exchange for their precious metal.

Bit coins: initially based on real coins (currencies), but given a social aspect by their SPECULATIVE use to buy REAL goods and services.

Bit coins are minted by MINERS, who in exchange for their services in converting REAL COINS to bit coins, for the purpose of INTERNET TRADING, award themselves a bit coin.

Tony Coleby

Tony Coleby, Photographe (2009-présent)

Répondu il y a 242w

No that suggests that either is a standalone currency and Litecoin is not yet mature enough to survive without Bitcoin. It is built on the same technology but without the market leader its dollar price would collapse. The reverse cannot be said to be true.

The common phrase is "the gold and silver of cryptocurrencies" and even the price ratio isn't too far away from that with Litecoin currently being worth around 1/40 of Bitcoin. The 20 year average gold:silver price ratio has been around this.

Leggi:  Comment obtenir rapidement de l'argent à un ami en Russie

Regardless of the semantics, the analogy of Bitcoin to gold holds strong but I would say Litecoin is a little less 'firm' in its role of silver.

To correct a point in below, their primary function is a financial transactional tool. Due to their deflationary nature they are hoarded and this gives rise to long-term price speculation and a perceived store of value.

Avram Meitner

Avram Meitner, Passionné de Bitcoin, avocat, commerçant et développeur.

Répondu il y a 243w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 571 et de vues de réponses 718.4k

It would be closer to the truth to call them the gold and silver. Their primary function, actuellement, en ce moment, is as a store of value and speculative investment.

Hubert Gertis

Hubert Gertis, optimized generalist. @hubert

Répondu il y a 242w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 126 et de vues de réponses 346.6k

I hope not. The introduction would be: too big to fail, please do meet former glory.
I prefer to see them as a future Laurel & Hardy of the payment universe. Black and white, but still going strong.

Tim Peterson

Tim Peterson, Programmation et biologie moléculaire, de petites choses qui gouvernent le monde.

Répondu il y a 242w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 66 et de vues de réponses 122.9k

Ne pas oublier Dogecoin, the penny!

Kuba Racz

Kuba Racz, Responsable de l'unité commerciale chez ITM Consulting

Répondu il y a 49w

I will call it gold and silver. Gold as now mainly as investment and silver for daily use.

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *

Questo sito usa Akismet per ridurre lo spam. Scopri come i tuoi dati vengono elaborati.