Privacy IS NOT A PROPERTY of money. Never has been. Privacy is and has always been part of identity and exchange.
Property of money is as follows
Scarcity
Durability
Acceptability
Portability
Divisiblity
Fungiblity
Immutablity
I dont see privacy being in there anywhere. That IS facts.
The real world doesn't care about your theoretical list of perfect money. That's why people choose to use fiat, USDT, and even other shitcoins over Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is not private so it's not fungible (AKA not uniform, AKA not indistinguishable from other Bitcoin).
Bitcoin is not widely accepted either vs fiat.
By your own definition it wouldn't be money.
Oh no normies wont accept my bitcoin, bitcoin has failed. KINDLY GFY.
So acceptability is now not a property of money?...Wtf?
You're all over the place man.
You're now literally arguing against your own criteria for money THAT YOU BROUGHT UP. You are not a serious person and no one should take your seriously.
You're point bring normies won't except my bitcoin. Why would i try to spend it with them? Dumb. I wouldn't. They don't even know anything about it. I stick to spending it to those that know it's value.
Do normies not use money?...if anything normies using it is necessary if you want to call it money
Money is the most saleable good. A function of it's acceptability that is even in your own criteria. If you said Bitcoin was a MoE ok that would be true, but that's not what you said. You said it was money. It's clearly not.
Nonsense argument. It's only money IF EVERYONE USES IT. Does everyone use bolivars? Pesos? Yen?
Does everyone use dollar or euro? No
Does everyone use Bitcoin ? No
Does everyone use Gold or Silver ? No
Do you know what is money ? Everything can be a money, historically, for centuries it was gold and silver, but at some places, like in Africa, shells was used at money, even beers, even cigarettes in prisons or in the army years ago...
Where did I say "everyone"? Don't add words that I didn't say.
I said *the most*.
Now your definition has turned arbitrary. So if any amount of people use something for exchange it is now money? If that is your definition you are saying Monero is money along with any shitcoin you don't like.
You are arrogant, it's sad how you talk about the average people. The value of Bitcoin or anything else is what you and the other person you deal with agree. Who know the value of Bitcoin ? You ? Me ? Market ? It's very subjective, if Bitcoin do x10 we will agree on that price, if Bitcoin loose 99% of it's actual price, we will agree too. Maybe in 10 years no one will want Bitcoin, maybe all the world will use Bitcoin, that's life, we will see. Please, don't make Bitcoin a fucking religion of arrogant moon boys thinking they know everything about the world 😉
Bitcoin have no fungibility. Because it's not private, each Bitcoin is different, some of them are... you know... "tainted" or "dirty". By the way, theses dirty coins have a lower acceptability (send a dirty coin to Binance and you will see). By your own criteria, Bitcoin is not a money 😂
Oh no a KYC exchange wont accept " tainted" bitcoin GFY.
The person which had send the tainted Bitcoin is fucked, not me. The vast majority of people having Bitcoin is for money and nothing else, the vast majority of people having Bitcoin is linked by KYC. It's possible to remain anonymous with Bitcoin but it's very difficult for the average person and it will be worse over time. Monero is not the king of DarkNet by accident.
"This list I compiled myself IS facts"
Money has never, ever come attached with a history of who owned it from the beginning of time. "Privacy" in this sense was so inherent in the medium of exchange that it was taken for granted. Why would you deliberately engrave a coin with it's ownership history? Well in the realm of digital money, we have the opposite problem: we have to deliberately *not* do this. This is a new problem emergent as a result of the properties of a new medium, a problem that was so impossible to have in the physical medium that nobody ever thought about how fundamental memorylessness is to money. And some people, seeing that work must be done to make our digital money work as much like physical money as possible, say it doesn't matter. Do they do it from a position of good faith? No. They do it either from a position of arrogant ignorance, hubris, or they do it with the goal of protecting their financial position.
Memorylessness, historylessness, temporal atomicity, this property absolutely is a fundamental, indispensible property of money. Besides being a necessary trait to ensure the well understood property of fungibility, it is important in it's own right.
He is now arguing against his own list. He says acceptability no longer matters lmao. Must be nice to be able to switch criteria when it becomes inconvenient
