Hacker News Reader

Comment by pixie_ | Hacker News Reader

Fiat does not imply constructed. The notion that gold (or tulips) are valuable are equally constructed ideas by humans. Nothing has 'inherent' value apart from the value humans perceive these things to have. No, the only thing fiat implies is manipulation - the ability for a government or person to mess with the value of a currency by 'willing it to be.' Bitcoin is not fiat.

View on HN

Just based on the Wikipedia article, I don't think you're right that fiat implies manipulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency

So, based on that definition, it is true that Bitcoin is not a fiat currency because it is not given value by law or government. However, although it technically does not have a centralized issuing authority that can arbitrarily create Bitcoins, Satoshi Nakamoto did hard code a creation rate for Bitcoin. In a sense, he is the original issuing authority. The only difference between Bitcoin and fiat currencies, when it comes to currency manipulation, is that Nakamoto committed early on to a specific plan for issuing currency. The government (or the Fed) not only does not make that commitment, but it is unable to make such a strong, unbreakable commitment, although it verbally makes similar commitments all the time.

You're making the mistake of consulting a medium writable by throngs of InternetLibertarians™. :P There is nothing inherent in the economic concept of a fiat currency of government.

What is a law or a government in any case? Bitcoin is created by rules. The rules are embedded in a program instead of a law-book. The governed users opt in by using the software rather than by living in some geography. The rules are enforced by being mathematically unbreakable rather than with courts and prisons. These factors alone shouldn't be especially significant, other than that they make Bitcoin more just and efficient.

Bitcoin is created by rules of mathematics and mined by problem solving. Gold is creating by mining and refining and governed by the rules of physics.. What does any of this have to do with the definition of fiat? It's already defined, lookup the latin - 'it shall be'

Exactly. Somebody said "it shall be" and behold, there were bitcoins. Fiat currency means no physical asset backing it. Bitcoins have no physical backing.

Please, go ahead. Create some Bitcoins. I'm waiting..

Although I do agree with you that the difference between Bitcoin and other fiat currencies is a matter of degree and not type, there is a rather important difference that you are skipping over. The fact is that there is accountability with respect to Bitcoin issuance, whereas there is little to none with respect to the amount of currency issued in other venues (i.e. central banks), except the possibility that people will flee the currency and devalue it.

In fact, with respect to money creation there are not a lot of set rules. The main problem is keeping supply matched with demand. From a governmental standpoint demand is usually enforced (at the very least by forcing taxes to be paid in your currency).

You have made the Internet-libertarian/goldbug mistake of thinking fiat is a dirty word.

Show me a fiat currency the appreciates over time and maybe I'll look at it differently. Have you ever thought of that the root of our over-consumption society might be caused by the need to keep our money always moving to prevent it from depreciating?

This is a very complicated and interesting topic. Many economists believe that inflation is necessary to keep people from hoarding. Spending, either in the form of acquisition or investment, is necessary to keep the economy juiced up.

In other words, your criticism would be considered a design feature by many economists. Some even considered adding a fee (demurrage) instead of facilitating inflation, encouraging you to use whatever money you had. This would be akin to a 1% asset tax instead of an income tax.

Sure. Bitcoin is a fiat currency that has, so far, generally appreciated.

It's not fiat because you can't create Bitcoins from nothing. If you can then create one. I dare you to create a single Bitcoin.

ooo, I can play this game. I dare you to create a single US dollar. ha! proof that the US dollar isn't fiat.

Not really, you missed the point which was the government can create new dollars at will. Nobody can create new Bitcoins on a whim.

The rate of bit-coin creation is only fixed over time, you can create a new bit-coin 'out of thin air' if you add enough computing power to the network at the right time and in the short term. The compensation is to slow the rate of bit-coins over the next cycle not shorten this cycle time. In theory you could crate more bitcoins than the 'long term cap' if you had enough computing power.

There is also a voting mechanism that can change the Bitcoin protocol, the NSA for one probably has enough computing power and bandwidth to flat out 'take over' the network and give themselves arbitrary bitcoin amounts.

PS: Voting is a basic problem with all network based protocols. If enough machines say this is what happened then that's what happened.

I could 'create' dollars too if I had a lot of resources the forge bills and coins. The point is any government can fuck with a currency.. what's new? There are plenty of ways to defend against attacks.. I was around during the P2P client wars. I know all about it. Back when the RIAA was trying to disrupt file sharing networks there were trusted/signed black lists of bad hosts to exclude from the network.. and that is only one defense type, there are many.

Why do you think a currency that naturally appreciates over time is desirable?

The point of Bitcoin is to have a currency that isn't subject to central control, but is easier to trade than gold or other commodities.

We can argue about whether or not that is a good thing, but let's at least be clear about what we're talking about. Using definitions of words that are different from what everyone else uses is not the way to communicate your ideas to other people, let alone convince them that you're right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com