Comment: Upvoted you

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Minor complaint... (see in situ)

Upvoted you

Up-voted you for the dictionary plus insightful comment on arguing over words. Personally, I think bitcoin falls under def. 3, but then we could argue over the dictionary definition of 'decree' and argue on. What should be thought about is the 'spirit' or intention of words used. As I've quoted Mises before from HA:

"no good can be employed for the function of a medium of exchange which at the very beginning of its use for this purpose did not have exchange value on account of other employments. And all these statements implied in the regression theorem are enounced apodictically as implied in the apriorism of praxeology. It must happen this way. Nobody can ever succeed in constructing a hypothetical case in which things were to occur in a different way."

Certainly no 'authority', ie, government 'decreed' bitcoin be money so you could argue it's not fiat. But the spirit of the word fiat, and decree, and Mises' comment above is that 'people' can't just arbitrarily decide to make something money and have it work. I recall a similar example from an LvMI lecture years ago where a group of people in a commune or something couldn't arbitrarily choose something to be money and have that work out.

Think about Mises' statement carefully -- did bitcoin have exchange value outside of it's employment as a medium of exchange? I've seen arguments that bitcoin does have intrinsic value but IMO they are a huge stretch. I've also seen arguments that bitcoin -> money wouldn't violate the regression theorem but I think the quote above is pretty cut and dry.

There's a lot more to this than a snippet from Human Action. The regression theorem involves some deep thinking (ie, why is the quote above true), as does the 'enounced apodictically as implied in the apriorism of praxeology' comment (ie, why are Austrians usually right).