Geist on Nostr: Having been created as opposed to found, the initial distribution is produced through ...
Having been created as opposed to found, the initial distribution is produced through a subsidy on recording transactions to the blockchain. Admittedly this isnt ideal, but of the ways to manage the initial distribution without a central authority this is probably the most honest, and provides a security budget for bootstrapping the network until fees alone can fund mining.
It is a ledger system, in that I agree, bitcoins are comprised of the record of transactions that created them, the UTXOs. However, there is an important distinction between this and traditional ledgers in that the total supply and record of transactions is continuously verified by anyone with a node.
Since there is no central issuer, no trusted counterparty, there is a provably scarce supply, and the asset itself can be held in self custody, I would argue its not possible for it to be a security.
As to defining a commodity, I think, and its not a crystalized definition:
-scarce
-uniform
-primary product
-no central issuance/control
-can be used in trade.
Fiat fails in all but the last; cryptos fail in their inability to resist a central issuance/control and scarcity; physical commodities like oil and gold pass for obvious reasons; bitcoin passes all of these too. I dont think I have ever seen a single perfect definition of a commodity, maybe you have one to cite, but classifications that categorically reject things because they dont manifest in the physical world seem logical prior to bitcoin, but with the advent of true digital scarcity its maybe worth revisiting.
It is a ledger system, in that I agree, bitcoins are comprised of the record of transactions that created them, the UTXOs. However, there is an important distinction between this and traditional ledgers in that the total supply and record of transactions is continuously verified by anyone with a node.
Since there is no central issuer, no trusted counterparty, there is a provably scarce supply, and the asset itself can be held in self custody, I would argue its not possible for it to be a security.
As to defining a commodity, I think, and its not a crystalized definition:
-scarce
-uniform
-primary product
-no central issuance/control
-can be used in trade.
Fiat fails in all but the last; cryptos fail in their inability to resist a central issuance/control and scarcity; physical commodities like oil and gold pass for obvious reasons; bitcoin passes all of these too. I dont think I have ever seen a single perfect definition of a commodity, maybe you have one to cite, but classifications that categorically reject things because they dont manifest in the physical world seem logical prior to bitcoin, but with the advent of true digital scarcity its maybe worth revisiting.