Comment: Bitcoins ARE tangible

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I think (see in situ)

Bitcoins ARE tangible

This may not be what you think at the onset... but bitcoins are actually tangible (I had to learn this too)

Some supposed monetary theorists assert that Bitcoin is not tangible. This is no doubt a problem due to the prison house of language the human mind dwells in when trying to convey ideas. But this conclusion is either the result of confused definitions or incorrect being based on several faulty premises and flawed logical reasoning. Bitcoins are tangible assets.

Critical to this discussion is the issue whether corporealness is either an element or a factor for tangibility in the context of monetary theory. In other words, can something be tangible and incorporeal?
First, it is important to get the definitions correct. The Greek word tetagon means to touch lightly and is the root for tangible and tangent.

The word tangent was first used by the Danish mathematician Thomas Fincke in his 1583 work “Geomietria Rotundi” and meant “to touch”, obviously in an abstracted sense, and was used in the sphere of knowledge known as geometry with regards to tangent lines and tangent planes.
Second, it was not until hundreds of years later that the word tangibility was also used to describe corporeal items which could likewise be physically touched. But even the distinguishment between the corporeal and non-corporeal gets fuzzy at the quantum mechanic level because of Planck’s constant. And this branch could lead down a very deep rabbit whole with: Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum.

Consequently, it appears from historical usage that corporealness is not an element for tangibility.

The above is paraphrased from the link below, please read the whole article it is really well written:

if you just want to watch a video explaining this, here is a good one:

Just plain 'Happy'about the direction the world is taking! Especially if we live to reach LEV [Longevity Escape Velocity]