“Never asserted otherwise.”
Let’s try this again.
I said: “drug dealers in the future who, under this fool’s scheme, would not be able to accept money”
and then you said:
“What you think is in the future is already in the past.”
Well, since the only thing I referred to as being “in the future” was drug dealers not being able to accept money, I don’t see any other way to read your comment than as you saying drug dealers already can’t accept money. If that’s not what you meant to say, you sure phrased it like it was.
“You haven’t offered a definition of money that satisfies you...”
Actually I specifically rejected using the term “money” since it’s the wrong term to be using. “Currency” is what we are talking about, not “money”. And if you need a definition of what “currency” is, then you probably need to go back and review Econ 101, my friend. Nobody’s paying me to give you remedial lessons.
“people are already using it in exchange as money”
People are engaging in trade with it, but that does not prove it is a currency, since people engage in trade with all sorts of items that are not currencies.
“Nothing about bitcoin is a Ponzi”
I’m sorry, but it fits every point of the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
“Which update of the bitcoin protocol changed the final pool size from 21 million coins? “
#1, I’ve been speaking of crypto in general, not only of bitcoin in the specific. But even bitcoin is not some holy grail that is going to save your arguments. The currently traded bitcoins certainly aren’t being issued under the original protocol anymore. So there is no guarantee there won’t be future changes in the protocols, including removing the arbitrary “pool size” you seem so impressed by.
“You consider regulation driven by the adopters (codified publicly, and unmistakably in the protocol itself) as ‘not real’, but simply saying so doesn’t make it so.”
Regulation with no enforcement mechanism isn’t real. Especially not self-regulation with no enforcement method. That’s window dressing, not regulation.
“Regulations need not be promulgated by the government to be ‘real’.”
They certainly need to be enforceable, lol.
“And government regulations are certainly subject to change.”
Ah, the “since no regulations are perfect we don’t need regulation” argument. LOL. This is just getting funny.
“Good thing that’s not the argument I’m making.”
No, you’ve been arguing for some reason that “bitcoin is money” in response to my statement that “crypto is not actually a currency”. I tried to head that off by pointing out to you that “money” is not a precise term, but you want to argue that anyway even though it’s pointless I guess.
Correct, over a decade ago drug dealers using Silk Road couldn't accept U.S. dollars (or any other government fiat), there was no transaction method in it for the parties to exchange dollars, so your future hypothetical has already come to pass. They could, and did, trade using bitcoin as their medium of exchange - money. They didn't use Tide bottles, as such barter is way, way less convenient than medium of exchange with the requisite features of money.
Actually I specifically rejected using the term “money” since it’s the wrong term to be using. “Currency” is what we are talking about, not “money”.
Money refers to a medium of exchange. Currency refers to a system of money used in a particular country.
The distinction you're trying to draw is irrelevant to the discussion of a medium of exchange (e.g. Bitcoin vs. Tide bottles).
Understand this logical fallacy on your part will receive no more of my attention after this post.
"people are already using it in exchange as money”
People are engaging in trade with it, but that does not prove it is a currency, since people engage in trade with all sorts of items that are not currencies.
It doesn't need to be a national currency to be used as money.
Your distinction is irrelevant, as we're discussing how someone can trade drugs if U.S. dollars are removed from the market by the government.
As you put it: "drug dealers not being able to accept money"
You imagine that Tide bottles are the solution, but the solution has already been found, and demonstrated over a decade ago.
Bitcoin has been adopted as a legal tender by a national government, so even your currency/money strawman lacks a factual basis.
I’m sorry, but it fits every point of the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
A Ponzi promises a return on investment with the proceeds of subsequent investors, and not from any profitable activity that can actually support the alleged proceeds. Bitcoin makes no promise of any return. It isn't there and you can't point to anywhere in the protocol. This is a strawman of your own creation.
Bitcoin is simply a hard money that can be exchanged globally without permission from 3rd party or government officials.
People presume a 'return' in national currencies over time relative to Bitcoin because national currencies are all inflated soft money, and under the inexorable force of supply and demand inflated currencies will lose exchange rate value to a fixed pool monetary base. This is why a fixed monetary pool is a preferable monetary feature. Inflation abrogates value and undermines the 'store of value' feature that people seek in money.
I’ve been speaking of crypto in general, not only of bitcoin in the specific.
I'm not going to let you take an escape hatch of generalities, because your proposed hypothetical was specific, and has been specifically met in a way you're clearly yet to grasp. Hence your resort to barter (Tide bottles), instead of even better money than U.S. Dollars and their guarantee of continued Federal debasement.
The currently traded bitcoins certainly aren’t being issued under the original protocol anymore.
Again trying to retreat into an ink of generalities.
I won't allow it.
You asserted "There’s no fixed pool"
I asked you when it has changed. It has never changed. Your assertion is a lie. It is fixed by clear and immutable mathematics. It is not based on ephemeral political promises.
since there is no real regulation to stop issuers from changing the standard,"
The 'real regulation' is the free market self interest of the invested parties. I'll take that free market result every time over the self interest of politicians that you seem to think is 'real regulation'.
No, you’ve been arguing for some reason that “bitcoin is money” in response to my statement that “crypto is not actually a currency”
No, I am addressing your hypothetical of what will happen if drug dealers can't use U.S. dollars. You said they'd use Tide bottles, and I pointed out how over a decade ago they used Bitcoin to solve this problem. No one cares about your diversionary argument regarding the conflation of national currencies and money (mediums of exchange, e.g. Tide bottles or Bitcoin).
I hope that clears up your confusion.