what is bitcoin the question is?
Why is it so important what it is? It’s interesting. I don’t have the urge to classify it in order to analyse it.
My question is, how do you start mining? :-/
Allow me to be the one to nitpick now. The topic is labeled, “Is BitCoin the currency of the future?”. This necessarily involves the definition of currencies, moneys, and mediums of exchange. Forgive me for interpriting that title differently then you would. And forgive Micah and I for going on for 20+ pages regarding the definition of money(A discussion you must have missed).
IF the argument is that BTC offers technological enhancements that help facilitate exchange, transactions, and trade then no Austrian in his right mind is going to denounce new innovative technology. It is the Austrian position that markets decide the ultimate utility found in those new technological advancements. Be they Dwolla style, components and features of bitcoin, or whatever.
The entire Austrian objection here is that we are simply pointing out that it’s not money, not a currency. Can you substantiate your claim that Austrian’s object to Bitcoins for any other reason? Can you post a link to an actual economist whos against BTC’s not as a currency but as a technological advancement?
Lol, a rampage? BTC is fraudulent if it is sold as a money. If I sold you a gold coin, but it actually was gold plated copper, that would be fraud. If I sell you something, lieing to you about it’s actual object, that is called fraud.
If on the other hand I sell you the object for what it is, then there is no problem.
What on earth are you going on about? My argument has consistently been the same since page 1. Weren’t you just attacking me for being consistent, or in your words repetative? Now I’m meta-arguing?
I’ve yet to see any argument from you. I don’t even know exactly what your issue is. You just like to pick on me I think. 
filc,
In the Austrian terminology, money has a very specific meaning. Government fiat are probably examples of currencies, but they are not money according to the Mises’ regression theorem. Currency is not an Austrian term, in fact I am not aware of any solid definition of “currency”, so there is no clear way to conclude if Bitcoin is or isn’t one. You yourself admit that the reason for your objection is that Bitcoin is neither money nor currency. So, we’re back to the problem of pointlessness of the terms “money” and “currency” in this thread. If it’s neither money nor currency, then don’t call them that. End of story. Now, can we move on?
Since I do not know any Austrian who is offering Bitcoin as money, I see no fraud. People who are not Austrians in general do not accept the Austrian definition of money, so if they trade Bitcoin and call it “money”, there is no fraud either.
You have failed to react to my argument even though I posted it twice in different formulations, plus I posted a reference to a thread on the Mises blog where I go in detail into the topic.
Moneys by decree do not invalidate the regression theorum. They only show that exchange ratio’s can be formed if forced. No Austrian would say that the dollar isn’t a currency or a money. It’s exchange ratio is set by the historical prices of yesterday. PRices going forward will be influenced based on the prices of today. AKA Regresion theorum.
[EDIT]
I actually recall this already being covered 10 or so pages ago.
Actually, I’ve often heard Austrians refer to the dollar as counterfeit money. That is, not real money at all.
Your being pedantic. Are you saying those very Austrian’s, who make this statement, don’t think economic calculation is done in USDollars?
Or are you just simply trying to push buttons?
filc,
I have hear many Austrians object to calling government fiat “money”. If you look at Mises Wiki article about money, it says:
and
Based on this definition, government fiat is not money, especially in case of currencies which did not began as a debasement of existing money (such as the Euro). However, elsewhere Mises Wiki says about fiat money:
These two definitions contradict each other. The article continues:
So, obviously, even Austrians use the term “money” in at least two distinct meanings. Furthermore, the quotes as well as this debate only underscore that the term “money” as defined by Austrians is confusing and meaningless. It’s completely unpraxeological.
Most importantly though, you avoid the issue at hand again. I would like to point out yet again that it was you who addressed my post to Clayton, so it is up to you to say what is wrong with it.
The next time you use the word “money” or “currency” when talking about Bitcoin, I’ll know that you’re not interested in a debate and are just chanting mantras.
this debate is ridiculous. it is austrians expressing their bias toward government activity with these osfuscated arguments that dont make any sense. the bottom line is, people use dollars and bitcoins for trade, exchange, that is it is money. that is the reality. you can fiddle with your definitions and regression axioms all you want, the reality wont change from that.
Whats rediculous is the lack of understanding. I keep repeating words like “Exchange Ratios” and economic calculation and in my mind I see everyones eyes glaze over like I’m speaking French.
Everyone here has an opinion yet no one actually wants to spend the time to research, learn, and study information to re-enforce their opinion
There is nothing wrong with bitcoin as a transaction method, a laundering mechanism, and an existing facilitator of trade. Whats wrong is when you fraudulently sell it as money. Or when you misunderstand what money is, and how it is created. In doing so your ignoring all of the great things BTC actually can offer(especially to already existing moneys), while focusing on a detail thats not really important, and one that is in error.
@Peter, most of my statements flew right over your head. Your arguing to air dude.
Disclaimer: I may be wrong - don’t bite my head off please.
This debate is not ridiculous. In fact it is very important, as it is debate about whether there are any theoretical and logical arguments against bitcoin becoming money (general medium of exchange, unit of account and store of value). Now, if you don’t care whether bitcoin is money then this discussion is of no interest to you and IMHO whether bitcoin is money or not is not a condition for its success. In my opinion bitcoin is like visa or mastercard or even like banknotes (from old gold standard days) - they may be accepted almost everywhere but these themselves are not money. Personally I see no reason for me to accept bitcoin, other than that it may be converted into ‘normal’ money - just like banknotes or credit cards. That does not mean bitcoin will not be successful or that there will be no need for bitcoins. If bitcoins are not money it means that we will store our wealth or pay our debts using different medium and maybe using bitcoins as convenience (bitcoin in mobile phones with NFC!) and/or necessity (in totalitarian tax-eating state, assuming there will be a way to anonymize it). Even if bitcoins themselves are not money they can still revolutionize the way we live and lets hope they will 
That’s not very nice.
I feel like I have read this very same paragraph on here before are Bit Coin bots spamming these boards?
This is wrong. Credit cards and banknotes are proxies for physical cash. Bitcoins aren’t.
To me they are at best proxies. I would not accept them if they were not redeemable in fiat, they would be mere tokens proving that somebody somewhere computed something insignificant and how is that supposed to preserve my wealth?
This has already been covered more then ocne here. Bitcoins do not have an established existing history of exchange ratio’s. Instead they borrow the already existing exchange ratio’s history of the dollar. In other words, all things are priced in another money, USDollars for example, then converted to BTC’s, then back. All economic and accounting calculations are done in USDollars, not BTC’s. BTC’s behave exactly as a dollar proxy.
If you had any understanding of exchange ratio’s and how currencies or moneys are formed, you would know that this is actually a good thing for BTC’s, not a bad thing.
Boniek’s assessment is excellent.
I really should unsubscribe from this thread rather than continuing to read and getting sucked back in. 
Whether BitCoins are a currency, money, etc. all depends on how you define the terms. Fiat is money by some definitions, and not by others. Similarly, BitCoins are money by some definitions, not by others. Gold is money by some definitions, not by others. Words are just means of communicating concepts between humans so it really doesn’t matter which definition is used as long as it is agreed upon. I would suggest to the BitCoin proponents here that you stick with the incredibly restricting definition of money used by those here which, as I understand it, goes something like:
Money: Any physical commodity used as a medium of exchange by X people (X depends on who you ask) that currently has industrial consumption value (e.g.: gold, rice, energy, etc.). Goods that can be traced back to a conceptual commodity, such as perceived value, coercively enforced value, collector value, etc. do not qualify.
I am not personally a fan of this definition as I believe it is far too loose and subjective, but I am willing to use it for the sake of moving forward.
I, and most other Austrians, would define money as a generally accepted medium of exchange. Simple and to the point. Bicoin, while it is accepted by a minuscule portion of society (fractions upon fractions of a percentage) as a medium of exchange, it is not generally accepted as a medium of exchange.
The more I read about bitcoin the more I’m sceptical of it. System was designed in such a way that early adopters stand gain A LOT. As interest in it would skyrocket fueled by people hopes for better future and quick buck so would the price with severly decreased supply (limitation of supply it is builtin into the system - with time you get less and less coins with increased difficulty). So basically what I would do to exploit this system to earn big fucking money? Write it thus becoming earliest adopter! To avoid angry mob wanting to murder me for falling for this scheme it would be good to stay anonymous and cash in on it relatively early when we still are monopoly on the market, before government starts monitoring it and people still trusting it to ensure complete anonymity. It will become worthless the moment government bans it so no shop online or offline can accept it, or when people will start successfully exploiting software and thus decreasing trust in it or when competition arises and with it price drops across the board.
Thats my conspiracy theory. It may not be true - don’t chop my head off.
filc,
you still have not responded to my arguments. But I will address your points nevertheless:
Some of your claims regarding exchange ratios and economic calculation could be correct. More important is however that you have failed to explain why these are relevant. You seem to be obsessed by proving that Bitcoin is neither money nor currency, but why should anyone care about this question eludes me. Furthermore, you have not provided a definition of either money or currency, which makes it impossible to determine whether the statements are true or not.
I already explained where this statement is wrong. The first issue is from the point of view of libertarian legal theory. Fraud has very specific meaning. Read Kinsella’s work in this area. Also, you have shown no evidence where people are selling Bitcoin to people while misrepresenting the features of it. Since there is no universally accepted definition of money (neither you have shown one that you subscribe to), saying that people call Bitcoin money is a wholly inadequate objection, furthermore it would only be relevant for a trade among Austrians.
I find it amusing that you accuse me of arguing to air, while all that you are doing is being obsessed with meaningless and undefined terms.