Are UTXOs really uniform? Don't they each have a unique and traceable history?
I'm not so sure that fiat fails to meet your definition, or at least that it does a worse job than Bitcoin. Only so many dollars (or Federal reserve notes) have been created to date - this is scarcity. The notes are not uniform but the accounting unit is, and Bitcoin hardware wallets are not uniform. I'm not sure why a commodity cannot have a central issuer, or why the dollar (which is created out of thin air by many banks) should not qualify but Bitcoin (which is created out of thin air by many computers) should.
Moreover I am willing to bet I could find other cryptocurrency that meets these criteria at least as well as Bitcoin. Zero-knowledge-proof privacy coins seem rather more uniform, for example.
As I said, my definition of commodity is uniform material; this is with uniformity being judged by the market so grade A eggs may be seen as a different uniform material than grade B.
Most definitions of commodity say something along the lines of raw material, which I think is slightly inaccurate as gasoline and crude oil are both considered commodities but one is made from the other. I think being material is a key part of what it means for something to be a commodity, which Bitcoiners would have no idea of questioning but for their rejection of fiat currency and embrace of a digital immaterial token.
asourcefamiliarwiththematter / a source familiar with the matter
npub17k…mhcd0
2023-09-19 23:20:25
in reply to nevent1q…6s3n
Author Public Key
npub17k64766yhzvhk2mws356dftl35lnkthjwq34gdz9cs8va3y9aejqwmhcd0Published at
2023-09-19 23:20:25Event JSON
{
"id": "832bca9e83d8c9d2299838079ff5be37e84d30fdf22751197af89263fb002f32",
"pubkey": "f5b55f6b44b8997b2b6e8469a6a57f8d3f3b2ef27023543445c40ecec485ee64",
"created_at": 1695165625,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"9c3f24333c5d1d9e20dbdba5bc0bf832e48dc39115fc7a4e99d1097b65932b87",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9d5d6c6d1756d566701f9f77db69bf3c2a4ab62ad010968513cedf0b7b30d7de"
],
[
"e",
"986cc78b763c015d9099d99d48d88756fbe1b6fc1d93fab9485a2e9b587bccd4"
],
[
"e",
"bc0635879a2303aefa7cca76222a52d77742d01e0d0cf0507e5be2a5178f9014"
],
[
"e",
"fd2a4c42147e69fe8eae4a99a9e13d7c606b27b70271af925013a2c001b4bcb4"
],
[
"e",
"02f47ea79a9e8a3f604e11de2a0f4715ff7884cf77ffa65abd7df7dad6ad1758",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f5b55f6b44b8997b2b6e8469a6a57f8d3f3b2ef27023543445c40ecec485ee64"
],
[
"p",
"e478da9689938a64bfe99645cafd4365b189d0ed20cae2e4e9acac3898542be6"
]
],
"content": "Are UTXOs really uniform? Don't they each have a unique and traceable history?\n\nI'm not so sure that fiat fails to meet your definition, or at least that it does a worse job than Bitcoin. Only so many dollars (or Federal reserve notes) have been created to date - this is scarcity. The notes are not uniform but the accounting unit is, and Bitcoin hardware wallets are not uniform. I'm not sure why a commodity cannot have a central issuer, or why the dollar (which is created out of thin air by many banks) should not qualify but Bitcoin (which is created out of thin air by many computers) should.\n\nMoreover I am willing to bet I could find other cryptocurrency that meets these criteria at least as well as Bitcoin. Zero-knowledge-proof privacy coins seem rather more uniform, for example.\n\nAs I said, my definition of commodity is uniform material; this is with uniformity being judged by the market so grade A eggs may be seen as a different uniform material than grade B.\n\nMost definitions of commodity say something along the lines of raw material, which I think is slightly inaccurate as gasoline and crude oil are both considered commodities but one is made from the other. I think being material is a key part of what it means for something to be a commodity, which Bitcoiners would have no idea of questioning but for their rejection of fiat currency and embrace of a digital immaterial token.",
"sig": "57cd8894968ff9e2921311696b7d06579dfc5da3d4a10934bbee5ad1c7796ee958b11d5b8ffb632e7a35282495469eeff561f80781b819641dfbb96d56da86c2"
}