Hacker News Reader

Comment by lingben | Hacker News Reader

I understand you have a vested interest in bitcoin and for that same reason I would suggest you take a few basic economic courses so you can understand what a currency is and why it is impossible for bitcoin to be a currency.

> But paper greenbacks don't play well with the internet. Bitcoins do.

This is simply false. The evidence is all around you.

Bitcoin is composed of two parts: the token and the protocol. The protocol is interesting and useful. It will be most probably integrated into existing currency systems. We are already seeing this type of experimentation with the Canadian MintChip.

The token system on the other hand will be remembered as an interesting digital phenomena the same way we now look back at beanie babies and tulipmania.

View on HN

"... it is impossible for bitcoin to be a currency."

It is already functioning as one -- just not a very effective or useful one. So, please be more articulate if you actually want to have a debate.

But thanks for diverting the the discussion by maligning my character.

Looking through your comment history, it's pretty clear that you have a strong aversion to Bitcoin. As someone so blindly opposed to it -- you probably have an ulterior motive too. At least I was forthcoming about mine -> I'm a Bitcoin fanboy and am building a business around it -- which is more than most speculators can claim.

So, what's yours? Because otherwise, you're kind of in need of digging yourself out of troll status. :)

It is functioning as digital barter - that you fail to recognize this and mistake it for a currency is why I suggested you take some basic economic courses.

How did I malign your character? I simply stated that since you are building a business based on bitcoin you may not be as objective as someone who has no vested interest one way or the other.

I don't own bitcoins or have any vested interest. It is simply an intellectual curiosity for me. I have no interest in making this personal and I was and am polite to you.

It seems like we had a misunderstanding around semantics then. My defintion was: "the fact or quality of being generally accepted or in use." The act of it being used as a currency.

My distinction between this and a more general "form of barter"/medium-of-exchange was written as '"first-class citizen" status' currency.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com