🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2/9/2018 5:43 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> On 2/7/2018 8:39 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> In article <p5g9ut$oks$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Dave Garland  <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>>>> You can't pay taxes in bitcoin, therefore it isn't money.
>>>>
>>>> You're not allowed to send them cash, so that's not money either?
>>>
>>> My town and village are delighted to accept tax payments in cash.  If
>>> you have some you don't want, I'd be happy to come pick it up.
>>
>> Your town and village, maybe. Try that with the feds, who're the ones
>> that minted it. UK pound notes are money, even though I can't pay my
>> taxes with them. The Venezuelan bolivar is money, even though not even
>> Venezuelans want it as payment.
>>
>>>
>>> In case it's not obvious, the definition of money has always been kind of
>>> fuzzy, but Bitcoin is lightyears outside the fuzz.
>>
>> I'd say the essence is that money is a symbolic medium of exchange.
>> Some versions are more stable, convenient, or useful than others.
>> Bitcoin ranks low on stability and convenience. But it's
>> nation-agnostic, which might be useful. It's a really interesting
>> concept. But I wouldn't personally attempt to store value with it.
>>
> 
> As I understand it, bitcoin transactions are not trackable in the way that
> currency transactions thru banks are. That is the big advantage in a lot of
> cases.
> 
Certainly not trackable with the ease that transactions through banks 
are. And some use it as if it is anonymous. I'm not sure that's 
entirely true, I believe that the blockchain contains a record of 
every transaction that has led to a particular coin's present state. 
If that's so, with sufficient computing power it might not be 
anonymous. (I'm sure that there are others here who know better than I.)