Nothing can be further from the truth. You don't have to go too far for the example. Cigarettes in prisons are used as money. People use all sorts of things as money. State wants to control it because it wants to collect some of the value produced by other people. That is all. Bitcoin is about not giving states these powers.
In most countries AFAIK it is illegal to mint your own "currency" and call it as such, hence artifact of the state.
Bitcoin lets non-state actors create currency.. incidentally, those most equipped to fund the processing power, are state actors, hence artifact of the state.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/55414/7-cities-have-their-own...
You can make your own currency all you want. You just can't make currency and pass it off as state sponsored currency without permission from the state.
No. That's barter. Money has very specific characteristics. Cigarettes in prison fail these three: divisibility, durability and uniformity.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/education/economic-lowdown-podcas...
All other decentralized money had demand other than for its currency purposes. Cigs in jail are in demand so they became a way to store value.
Bitcoin is the opposite. It has value because people are saying it's a currency. But it's monopoly money.
Mackerel was chosen since it's cost was closest to $1USD, and nobody wants to eat it. It also has unique markings so they can track down theft from each other.
Mackerel would be worse than cigarettes as they are not divisible. It would also be a good source of Vitamin D if you were incarcerated in northern latitudes
If it were truly the case that no one wanted it, it could not be used as money, as another good would quickly replace it.
This is patently false. Money has existed before states, and it has existed without states.
Money (specie: often in the form of coinage but not limited to such) was invented when a warlord or monarch captures riches (mines, cities), strikes coins with his visage, uses the coins to pay his soldiers (who are otherwise awful credit risks), then demands taxes from the free peasantry, creating a market economy in the process. States create markets. Markets require states. If for no other reason than to provide protection over the transaction with the threat of coercion.
Before money existed, the free peasantry used credit. The historical evidence shows that first came credit, then came money, then came barter. The exact opposite of what Adam Smith and most economists believe.
The historical evidence shows that first came credit, then came money, then came barter.
(For anyone who wants to follow along, the PDF can be found at https://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf)
The concept of debt predates the concept of barter a long time. Barter requires judging things of equal value. Debt however is easy to understand for humans regardless of ability to have the concept of possession (help me today and i help you tomorrow). I see no reason to believe that money or barter would become before debt in human development.
The point I'm specifically trying to come to grips with is the idea that money came before barter: considering that money is used as a token that is itself bartered for goods or services, I can't understand how money came before barter. It just doesn't make sense, using money is barter.
I had this discussion a few years ago and one thing that I found interesting as a thought is that barter is not something people like to do. It's generally only used if a token cannot be used because for instance the token is not stable in value. So in times of crisis people would fall back to barter as an alternative but when a stable token of exchange exists, barter does not play a role.
The first thing that develops in a new community is debt and credit but with regards to if money or barter came first there does not seem to be a lot of agreement. I personally feel that barter is quite an unnatural concept because one party will most likely always lose. I cannot imagine that it would come naturally because it's a step back from debt and credit. The only thing it would give you is the ability to trade with someone you don't trust. And that is probably when you tribe meets another tribe which I feel is something that would happen after establishing a local currency.
I see barter as an early, rugged form of money. Many early civilizations would trade goods such as cows or other animals in exchange for services or other goods. Technically those cows or whatever else WERE a currency. You could give someone 3 cows to help you do X, Y, Z. Replace cow with 300 gold coins and there isn't an enormous difference because each only has as much value as you allow it.
Eventually through barter you'd realize maybe you don't want to give all your cows away or perhaps people begin to realize that sure maybe now they have 3 cows since they did X, Y, Z for you but now the person they need stuff from doesn't need cows because they have 100 cows. Naturally I think currency (coin, paper money... etc) would develop from this to form a more "universal" token for barter so that it could then be more easily used by whoever receives it.
The point is that "I'll give you this cow and you'll owe me one" predates "I'll give you this cow and you'll give me those chickens". To the extent that debt is a special type of barter, so is money; I think the distinction between exchanging something for a thing and exchanging something for a debt is worth making.
The point I'm specifically trying to come to grips with is the idea that money came before barter: considering that money is used as a token that is itself bartered for goods or services, I can't understand how money came before barter. It just doesn't make sense, using money is barter.
I don't know if livestock domestication would be said to be a precursor to gold in some places.
I would suggest "money is an artefact of societies" would be a better way of expressing this - people will otherwise get hung up on whether complex societies, with currencies, that don't look like modern nation-states, disprove this statement.
This seems to be a mistake repeated routinely throughout the tech world. You see it today's Netflix announcement about proxies. You see it with the software/media industries reliance on DRM. You see it with people trying to halt the NSA with stronger forms of encryption (or with the NSA's mass surveillance in the first place). Technology is not a cure-all and unloading an army of computer scientists on a problem isn't usually the answer.
Money is an artifact of the state; always has been, always will.
Abraham listened to Ephron, and Abraham weighed out for Ephron
the silver that he had named in the hearing of the Hittites,
four hundred shekels of silver, according to the weights current
among the merchants.
Gen 23:16[1]
> "The folly of BitCoin is to believe that technical problems are somehow orthogonal to social problems."
This. Or, to restate it, to mistake social solutions to 'money' as technical problems that need fixing.
Here's an article from what remains of one such pre-colonial state detailing how wampum formed the basis of their international treaty laws: http://www.onondaganation.org/culture/wampum/
Money is an artifact of the state because you have to pay taxes in the state's money. If you could pay state and local taxes in bitcoin it would be possible to use bitcoin exclusively for all transactions.
I am aware of plenty of people saying it about the internet now - both that information has become an artifact of the internet and that the internet has become an artifact of the state (specifically, of American cultural and political hegemony.)