Ah, so if U.S. government says Bitcoin is legitimate, it suddenly has extrinsic force: it will be accepted like “real” money.
-
@GlennF Bitcoin isn't used as a unit of account, it's used as a medium of value. Best understood as a payment system.
@GlennF If the US "recognizes" Bitcoin, it's not as money per se but as an alternative / marginal practice of payments.
-
-
@sarahjeong I do see your point. But it also sweeps it closer to extrinsic. -
@GlennF It does, but I don't think the gov't is the only player. Gov'ts are a very efficient players in money systems but that doesn't mean> -
@GlennF >they are the only ones that apply that kind of game-changing action to money. -
@sarahjeong Also agree. Something about having nuclear weapons helps, though. -
@GlennF shameless self-promotion: I wrote this from a quasi-sovereign theory of money POV http://ssrn.com/abstract=2294124 … -
@sarahjeong Oh, this looks wonderful. I am marking to read later (and I will). I have an Economist piece coming out in a couple of weeks -
@GlennF Looking forward to reading it!
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
@GlennF The only way that gov't force will really enter the picture is if it begins to uphold contractual agreements w/r/t Bitcoin. -
@GlennF Which is not nothing, but reeeeeeally different from the federal gov't recognizing it as money. Which it won't. -
@sarahjeong This is true, and I accept that. But it slides Bitcoin slightly out of the current slot it occupies. -
@GlennF Maybe! It's actually unclear. FinCEN guidance has been floating around for a while now, & there's contract cases pending right now!
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.