Explain Bitcoin in non-financial terms

I can’t really get behind this explanation, since even though the general point of it is in the right place, each individual part of it isn’t really right. The 21 million (or so) total bitcoins aren’t based on any of the math behind bitcoin. It’s an arbitrary number that was planned into it from the beginning.

Yeah, but they’re much harder to move around. You can memorize a private key and take your riches with you anywhere, and it’s literally not provable that you have it (if you are sufficiently careful).

One of the interesting things about Bitcoin is that it pokes some holes in what we think is important about currencies.

Sure, gold has some inherent value, but nowhere near enough to justify it’s price. It’s basically a pretty metal that’s hard to find. Governments back currencies, but there’s a long history of governments getting into a bad state and the currencies going to shit.

It doesn’t have a predetermined value. It’s value, at any time, is what anyone is prepared to exchange for it.

The same as any other currency.

My personal opinion is that bitcoins are just riding on a bubble. The bubble’s going to pop and all the bitcoins in the world will be worth less than a single tulip. And the people who supported bitcoins will discover that those things about currency that they thought weren’t important actually mattered.

But every other currency has some organization which has a vested interest in the currency maintaining its value. The entire United States government actively backs the dollar. Bitcoins have no equivalent supporter.

I’m not disagreeing with this. Nevertheless, people can and do spend Bitcoins on products, and exchange them for other currencies. It’s shown that it’s at least possible for a non-centralised currency to exist and function, for some non-trivial length of time, and value.

Which doesn’t mean that it’s not a bubble, and that some people won’t lose a great deal. But it’s not clear yet what, if anything, will cause the bubble to burst. Regulation is the most likely candidate, but that’s hard to do with a decentralised, anonymous network.

The reason I thought it had a predetermined value is because treis compared btc mining to actual gold mining. That led me to believe that the data btc miners recover has some predetermined value, which by convention is 25 btc. I’m sure like any commodity, the value will fluctuate, but I’m still light years from understanding how anybody can make $10K a pop from adding data blocks to transactions. I’m hoping to find a comparison to something I do understand, but every time I try I wind up missing the mark.

Telemark says these are “complex mathematical calculations whose sole purpose is to regulate the availability of Bitcoins.” I’m assuming these calculations involve comparisons to other world currencies?

From this NY Times article about possible Bitcoin regulation:

So would it be correct to say a btc miner is like a bank working under contract to determine how much a Bitcoin is worth? So that every Bitcoin transaction is incorporated into this massive equation-solving effort to find a balance of btc value to real-world currencies?

Not even remotely correct. And that’s why you keep getting confused. Stop trying to develop some kind of value equivalence or conversion factor between btc and conventional money.

A Euro is worth exactly nothing intrinsically. It is worth exactly as much cheese or milk or gasoline as someone is willing to give you for one euro at one particular place at one particular moment in time.

Ditto a dollar or a yuan or a ruble or a btc. Or heck, even now-defunct currencies like Deutschmarks or Confederate US dollars.

Money has no inherent value. Money’s only “value” is what you can exchange it for at a specific place and time. And yes, you can trade one kind of money for another, e.g. exchange dollars for Euros or vice versa. So likewise you can exchange dollars for btc or vice versa. At what exchange rate? At whatever exchange rate you can find somebody to trade with right now, right here.

And this is no different than a gold nugget. Gold has (almost) no intrinsic value. You can’t eat it. You can’t use it to keep warm. To a primitive human or a modern person in a solo survival situation it’s useless. It’s only value is that somebody someplace might give you something else in exchange for it.

The rules in effect at your job today say you can trade 1 hour of work for (say) $15. The rules in effect at your grocery store today say you can trade $15 for 7 dozen eggs or 2 lbs of nice beef.

No, as far as I know they are completely self-contained and don’t relate to anything in the real world.

The question about the real value of Bitcoins is not easy to answer - the problem is that there isn’t enough volume of actual purchasing of either dollars with Bitcoins or Bitcoins with dollars to really make the market speak the value. There seems to be a very small amount of traffic - small relative to the number of Bitcoins, and in such a situation the (IMHO) highly inflated exchange rate seems to be stable. But whenever there is any real action in the market the value tends to plummet. I suspect that almost nobody is selling Bitcoins, and the miners are all holding onto those coins that they mine - in the hope that they will continue to increase in value. Thus nobody is making any real money - only the hope of future wealth.

So there is mining for, and some trade paid for with, tokens that everybody hopes will have some intrinsic value in the real world. There is a current metric of that value, but it isn’t supported by enough trade to make it a robust metric of value. IMHO the value is somewhere between 1/1000 and 1/100 the current exchange rate. Any idea that the value of the Bitcoin economy is growing at over a million dollars a day is fanciful. The entire value is speculative - based upon the dream that Bitcoin will eventually become a real currency. Curiously, the desire to speculate on Bitcoin’s value is probably one of the forces that will prevent it becoming so. Its use case in the dark economy seems to be both its main value and also a significant problem. Currently Bitcoin and Tor have probably provided some very useful tools to the law enforcement communities in allowing them to trace the dark economy. (The idea that Bitcoin and Tor actually provide useful cover is remarkably naive.)

Only when someone tries to cash out a large holding of Bitcoin will the value be known. And you have to wonder - just how many people will be willing to buy into the Bitcoin dream with large amounts of cold hard cash. Once the computational cost of mining gets unaffordable - even with custom silicon, we will find out. My prediction is that the crash will come hard soon after.

Late edit …
Change the first paragraph to read (italics are new) …

Not even remotely correct. And that’s why you keep getting confused. Stop trying to develop some kind of built-in value equivalence or conversion factor between btc and conventional money. Or between any conventional money and any other conventional money or any other thing you can buy or sell.

Francis Vaughan - I agree with everything you’ve just said. But I’d like to expand a bit on this part.

Most publicly traded companys’ stock is similar. The vast majority of the shares of, say, IBM, are NOT traded on any given day. And if, for whatever exogenous reason, suddenly a lot of people want to sell or to buy, we see the price plummet or skyrocket respectively. The 1987 flash crash was certainly a demonstration of this phenomenon.

So in that sense, the current stock price is a very poor definition of the intrinsic or “actual” value of a company, whatever that term may mean. But it’s certainly the one we in the capitalist system live on. How often do experts & amateurs alike speak of “market capitalization”, the fiction that all shares are worth whatever somebody paid 2 minutes ago for a microscopic percentage of the total outstanding shares?

And so, by extension, if current stock price is “good enough”, even for most major issues that are still thinly traded on a percentage of shares-outstanding basis, then ought we not accept the current exchange rate of btc to any outside currency as more or less equally valid or “real”?

I agree that btc is much more of a closed system than are IBM shares. For all the reasons you enumerated. So there is greater scope for mismatch between the current nominal exchange rate and the “real” rate.

But it’s a difference of degree, not of kind. A lot of the ructions in the conventional ForEx markets are no different. e.g. some days recently there are very few buyers for Argentine pesos.

There is NO predetermined value, it has 0 intrinsic value, how much is a string of numbers worth intrinsically?

HOWEVER it does have value due to the fact you can buy a gram of cocaine on a darknetmarket, or exchange the bitcoin for cash to someone looking to buy it via localbitcoins.com etc.

It has value because people are willing to exchange cash or goods for it, period.

I guess what I don’t understand is why anybody would consider Bitcoins to have value. I still haven’t nailed down what benefit Bitcoin mining actually provides. I get the concept of trading items of value/work for money. I don’t get what’s valuable in the btc economy.

And my faltering foundation of understanding collapses yet again. If Bitcoin has an exchange rate with real-world currency, how can it not use external values to determine its own worth?

I’m sure there’s other uses for it than money laundering and drug trafficking: ways that are actually legal. So far, I haven’t been able to find them.

Let’s try casino chips as an analogy.

If you go into Harrah’s, you *can’t *bet using dollar bills. They won’t let you. You cannot play with dollars because the other party you want to play with, namely the house, says you can’t. It takes two willing people to make a trade.

But they *will *“sell” you chips labeled 1, 5, and 10 in exchange for dollars with Washington’s, Lincoln’s, and I-forget-who’s pictures on them. And they *will *let you gamble with those chips.

So *if *you want to gamble, *that’s *why you want Harrah’s chips. Not because chips are “better” in some sense than dollars or Euros. But because chips let you play a game you want to play. Or said another way, because chips let you buy the entertainment you want.

So now let’s say you play a while, exchanging chips for entertainment & maybe a low-quality drink or two. And eventually you decide you’re done.

You *can *take your chips home but you *can’t *spend them at the grocery store; the grocery store *won’t *take them. Again it takes two willing participants to make a trade. And they aren’t willing because the Federal & local government has prohibited them from being so.

But you *can *take your chips back to Harrah’s and exchange them for bills with Washingtons, Lincolns, and I-forget-who’s.

So the existence of Harrah’s chips is useless to you *unless *you want to gamble at Harrah’s. And if you *do *want to gamble at Harrah’s, then they’re absolutely essential.
With all that background, now let’s try btc: I want to sell my cocaine without a way for governments to track the flow of money. Somebody has conveniently set up this thing called btc that lets me do that.

All I need is for a buyer to agree to use the same payment system: btc. The drug buyer spends dollars to get btc, sends the btc to the drug seller. The drug seller gets the btc, sends the drugs, and then converts the btc into dollars again.

The drug guys like btc because they believe the anonymity and portability make this method of moving value more safe than truckloads of US100 dollar bills. Or checks sent through the traditional financial system that can be traced by law enforcement.

Once the system gets bigger, then drug sellers can contract with drug transporters or drug manufacturers to also trade using btc. Buyers can do the same thing, paying for more and more of the total logistics chain from say, coca farmer to street user wholly within the btc world.

And if some people can be persuaded to use btc for legitimate transactions, so much the better. If the Ferrari dealership will take btc, then the drug seller has another way to use his hard-earned btc, leaving the Ferrari store to mess with converting them to dollars. But maybe the Ferrari store’s landlord will also take btc … etc.

In this way more than one currency can exist in a single geographical area. In much of the Third World there are two currencies in use: the local one, and US dollars. Folks can pay with either or be paid in either. Whenever both parties are willing. And usually the local government is not real happy about this and tries to stamp out using other currencies. With varying degrees of success. Usually the stronger the motivation of the citizens to escape their local currency’s problems, the harder the local government is trying to keep people trapped in the local currency.
You can look at the success or failure of btc as essentially being the mirror image of the success or failure of anti-money-laundering efforts in real-world currencies. The fact btc seems to be working for now indicates (to me at least) that the various governments’ efforts to stamp out drug and terrorism money flows is working enough to hurt the illicit folks enough to motivate them to make btc work. So far.

There is nothing to prevent anyone from using btc today to transact completely legitimate business. At the moment it’s just less convenient for most folks than using plain old dollars or Euros or whatever. So most folks today don’t use btc for everyday transactions.

If something happens in the future to change the relative convenience of dollars vs btc, then we’ll see behavior of folks in general change as well.

Note there’s nothing special particularly about btc; there have been other non-governmental currencies, both digital and physical, going back for centuries. What make btc different is its absence of a central bank equivalent and the fact it’s in operation today, not at some time in the past.

Bitcoin mining is necessary to keep the Bitcoin network running. That is, the transaction record that determines who has what is generated by the miners. As an incentive to the miners, there’s a reward, in Bitcoin. Yes, this is all very self-referential, but ultimately Bitcoin has value because people expect it to have value and will trade other things of value for it.

Note that when Bitcoin started, no one thought it was worth anything, and it wasn’t. It was just an interesting software experiment. The first recorded Bitcoin transaction for something of value was 10,000 BTC that someone paid for a pizza to be delivered. Again, this was all just sort of a lark for a while, then people realized that maybe it would be worth something, and then speculation took hold, and then people started using it for real.

Here are a few:

  1. It allows you to transfer money in < 1 hour anywhere in the world, with very low transaction costs (< 1%). That’s of great value to foreign workers sending money home.

  2. It allows you to carry money with you in a way that no one can prove you have, or take from you by mugging. That’s of great value to, well, almost anyone. Wouldn’t it be nice to know that you always have a little safety net with you?

  3. It allows you to make purchases or transfers that are embarrassing or hypocritical or that you otherwise might not want to be associated with you. Yes, illegal purchases are a subset of these, but there are lots of legal things that you might want to buy or give money to and not have attached to your name. The CEO of Mozilla recently had to step down because he donated money to an anti-gay political group. Nothing illegal about that, but I bet he wished that he had done it anonymously.

  4. This one’e kind of esoteric, but it’s pretty cool: It allows you to post a bond/prize of a sort for certain mathematical accomplishments. We’ve been talking about Bitcoin as just a way to send money around, but it’s more than that. There’s a programming language embedded in it, so it’s actually a way to make money behave according to software. Again, this one goes pretty deep, but think of it this way: With a sufficiently powerful language, you can write contracts in the money transfer system itself. No need to rely on a court system to adjudicate because the payment system itself will enforce transfers mathematically.

Four things that are either simply impossible or are more expensive with traditional currencies.

The other bonus to bitcoin for both customer and seller is:

1.The transaction can’t be reversed or disputed(good for seller, bad for buyer)

2.It doesn’t expose any of the buyer’s personal info or account. The seller can’t try to blackmail them etc. It is connected to nothing.
I don’t know why people get hung up on the mostly used for illegal goods thing, markets and currencies don’t care. If it can be used to buy illegal drugs, it has value.

Bitcoin is a real-world currency. It is being used as a means of paying for stuff, in the real world, now, and is being exchanged for other currencies as well.

Honestly, I think you understand how Bitcoin works pretty well, but for whatever reason don’t want to accept that it works like that. Every currency uses external values to determine it’s worth. One Pound Sterling, for me, has value based not on the numbers in my bank account or printed on my banknotes, but because I receive a certain amount of them for my work, and can spend a certain amount of them for thinks I want or need. The government backing that currency isn’t what gives it value, but it massively increases my confidence that it will hold that value. Bitcoin gets its value the same way. Of course, whether it will hold that value is much more uncertain that with many government backed currencies.

It’s currently successful because it fulfils a need (or at least, is perceived by its users to fill a perceived need), and those that use it feel the risk is more than balanced by the usefulness.