Hey, thanks for the comment. I get your comment about something being "too libertarian" as worth looking into. But in that case, then so would "anarcho-capitalism", which is certainly libertarian, but as non-Objectivist as Marxism.

I reserve judgment on Bitcoin, pending further research. But my current reservations are mainly that it's "value" is totally subjective, and not based in reality, as opposed to say, gold is. As far as being able to print a paper receipt, as I've seen in some comments, I fail to see how that is in any way different than any other fiat paper currency backed with nothing. But, I am always open to further research, and would like to hear feedback on links etc. to the best objective articles arguing that Bitcoin is, or could one day be, accepted as a true universal medium of exchange.

Is it actually anything physical? Is it metal? And
if so, what metal? Gold,silver, copper, platinum,
tin? Can you hold it in your hand?

I like things to be real. I don't even like when
magazines want me to give up printed copies
in favor getting copies sent over the Internet,
things which can come and just vanish, and
be wiped out with a button.--But you're right if
you think I don't understand digital currency.

Hard to tell what the price of Bitcoin would be if it did not have any competitors. Branding is important, but there are physical and logistical barriers to entry for Kleenex (which does have significant competitors) that don't exist for Bitcoin competitors. This gives it added risk in my book.

My main concern is, what are the barriers to entry for other digital currencies? A few other dc's exist now, but in principle there could be an unlimited number of Bitcoin competitors with features and advantages equivalent to those you described above.

I'm also a techie and MA economist (UNLV, home of the third [and thankfully final] presidential non-debate). I'm also not a Bitcoin enthusiast yet, but if the Dems think the digital currency is "too libertarian" it might be worth a closer look.

I don't mind traveling in clans as long as there are readily accessible exit doors.

Haha! Yes, I can appreciate that. Not sure if you call what is happening to humans evolution or devolution...

I know there have been many dozen different "alt-coins" developed over the years, maybe hundreds. They have pretty much all failed to get any permanent popularity other than perhaps Etherium. But, yes, there is no limit to the number of market entries, however all of the new ones don't seem to affect the price of Bitcoin (the grandfather of them all). It would be like trying to get people to stop buying Kleenex brand tissues.

I'm a techie and MA economist (NYU). Not sure I'm at all sold in Bitcoin as real money, but regardless: "Ayn Rand Schlick"? Gimme A break. I'm sure there are Obectivist advocates for Bitcoin, but IMO it's appeal is to free-marketers in general.

Of course using AR in an ad hominem attack is always convenient for LibProgs.

I'm wondering how many competitors the market could bear, and how an increasing number of bitcoin "clones" would affect the value of all of them. In principle there is no limit to the number of digital currencies that could be launched.

" But it isn't necessary to live. It only helps speed up the process of quality of life."
True. It helps in immensely, so much that it's a "need" for me. I'm fully domesticated, and wouldn't do well on my own. Humans are adapted to travel in clans.

I think if you understood digital currency better you would be a fan from what you are writing. What makes it Libertarian is that it takes the power of government, banks, etc., out of determining the value of currency. The value is decided 100% by the users of the currency. It is truly a natural supply and demand currency, which doesn't exist anymore with government backed currency manipulation.

Bitcoin can actually even be printed into physical form, but nobody would want to accept it without first verifying it is legitimate with an internet connection.

The great things about Bitcoin are: 1. There is only so much of it and never will be more than a certain amount. It cannot be changed (no new money printing). 2. It cannot be counterfeited. 3. No single entity controls it at all. Hundreds of thousands (or millions) of users control it at the same time. It is a simple set of rules that cannot be broken. It really is something incredible.

Permalink: Yes, yes, yes!!!

Yes, yes, yes!!!

It's another way for the government to lose control, so, of course she's against it.

Bitcoin too "libertarian"?!--I am no great fan of the
Internet (though perhaps Galt's Daily Gulch is a
redeeming feature), and I don't understand very
well the concept of "digital currency". I don't see
much "libertarian" or "Ayn Rand" about it. I like
physical, cash money. Gold would be nice, also
silver, but paper dollars would be all right if they
had the proper metal in back of them. I'm not
even too fond of checks. When I have to send
money through the mail, I generally send a mon-
ey order.
It would be nice if the government were for-
bidden to print money, and it were done by priv-
ate companies, who would be subject to being
charged with fraud if they misrepresented the
weight/amount of metal in back of their bills/notes.--And then, perhaps the government
should be permitted to print some money--
some sort of government paper scrip, to pay
the armed service personnel, with a certain a-
mount of weight/metal printed on the front of
the bills/notes, guaranteed.

That is surprisingly similar to how Bitcoin works with the different exchanges and online storage wallets, however you also have the option of storing it offline on a piece of paper or USB key. You never have to rely on a bank that way. You can rely entirely on your own storage solution. The online storage solutions compete to give you peace of mind for your storage solutions, not unlike how banks used to compete for your peace of mind on which bank in which to store your "gold" money. So really Bitcoin is the best of both worlds. You can pay someone to help you protect your Bitcoin or you can risk doing it yourself and have autonomous control of your own money. The government can never have ultimate control over your money though.

Not to mention, there are several other types of digital currency like Litecoin and Etherium that compete with Bitcoin. You could look a those as different banks in the same way.

It is not a standard, that is to say, government-backed fiat currency, I agree, which is why I can palate the idea of it at all.

What I would think might be interesting is to see a banking system similar to what existed before the Federal Reserve took control: a system where government couldn't control money at all and regional banks had to literally compete for their value in the market. If bitcoin leads to that kind of system, I'm all in!

"Yes, our problem is we replaced golds value with trust."

Agreed.

Literally, I can buy gold with bitcoin.
Provident Metals (there are a few others as well) accept bitcoin.

It doesn't have to intangible. You can print it out (called a paper wallet) and give it to someone. You can also drop that piece of paper on the ground and lose it just as you a dollar or a coin.

>That is the very definition of a fiat currency

Yes, our problem is we replaced golds value with trust.
If Bitcoin got pegged to gold - then it would be an electronic form of gold

Haha! Yes, but it is the people who use it that get to decide if it has value, not a government entity. There is no "they" that can fold up shop. There is no shop. It is thousands (eventually millions) of computers worldwide that is the "shop". A government cannot shut down Bitcoin, only make it a little harder for someone within their own country to access it. It would take a permanent global electric grid collapse for Bitcoin to be "shut down". I can guarantee you that fiat currency would have no value by that point, and gold would probably have little to no value either. Water and bullets. ;)

Hmmm... not sure I agree with your statement, "we need to work together and serve one another to live." I understand that you clarified that it should be voluntary, but I still don't think working together and serving is a necessity at all. A single person can survive on a desert island. Is it nice to have others to work with to help accomplish multiple goals simultaneously and spread specialties around? Of course. But it isn't necessary to live. It only helps speed up the process of quality of life.

GREAT MOVIE! Yes, I agree with everything you are saying here. Water is probably the ultimate currency if we stop and think about it, other than perhaps Oxygen...

I think we both would agree that fiat currency is complete B.S. and is only good as long as a government exists to back it. I would argue that Bitcoin definitely does not fall into that category of fiat currency, however. It is a commodity, just a rather strange one, perhaps like tulip bulbs...

"it still has value if people believe it has value."

Bingo. To me, because it has no physical backing, they could fold up shop (or get shut down by a government) and I'm hosed. Just like I will be in twenty years when our debt crushes us... Wait a minute... ;)

There was a really bad B-movie called "Ice Pirates" where water was money. I'd actually argue that water is a very reasonable commodity of trade and value, as life itself depends on it, so your example isn't necessarily as far-fetched as it may initially seem to you. I live in the western US and water rights are a huge deal out here.

You may not be aware of this, but gold is incredibly useful in computer electronics. Most leads connecting a microprocessor use gold because it is a great conductor of electricity and can be pulled into very small wires. Yes, it is pretty and rare, but people also put it on cakes (weird people with money to burn).

"It's all relative."

Ultimately, all value is.