Re:Why Bitcoin Matters
by gojomo on Thursday January 23, 2014 @08:17PM
(#7112778)
Fiat is now an English word, derived from the Latin, which does not mean the same thing as its Latin origin. But really, look it up. if you don't believe me. That's why we have dictionaries, to help people confused about words!
Dictionaries are not written by goldbugs, and while dictionary definitions vary from each other and from prevalent usage over time, when dozens of sources over 80 years all emphasize the same decree aspect, and you are in fact complaining about people widely using it that same way, then both linguistic prescription and linguistic description agree: that is in fact what it means to competent English speakers.
I fully agree that 'fiat money' also has a strong denotation of 'unbacked', because at its origin and through its history, that always been one of its qualities. But that is in addition to, and often reliant upon, the government fiat – not exclusive of the fiat.
Really, the best clue to the term's origin and traditional use was the oldest I quoted, from a non-American source 80 years ago. It describes 'fiat money' in almost exactly the dimensions that you accuse goldbugs of making-up in recent years, which suggests that instead you are making things up.
And yes, Bitcoin isn't backed by a commodity of other value, and yes, it shares that property with fiat money. If you'd simply said that – it is similar to fiat money in this particular way – you'd be on firm ground. The deception you've attempted is the idea that lack-of-collateral-backing is the defining quality of 'fiat money'.
If people using 'fiat money' in its longstanding sense sound ridiculous to you, it's your stubbornly-eccentric definition that should change.
Dictionaries are not written by goldbugs, and while dictionary definitions vary from each other and from prevalent usage over time, when dozens of sources over 80 years all emphasize the same decree aspect, and you are in fact complaining about people widely using it that same way, then both linguistic prescription and linguistic description agree: that is in fact what it means to competent English speakers.
I fully agree that 'fiat money' also has a strong denotation of 'unbacked', because at its origin and through its history, that always been one of its qualities. But that is in addition to, and often reliant upon, the government fiat – not exclusive of the fiat.
Really, the best clue to the term's origin and traditional use was the oldest I quoted, from a non-American source 80 years ago. It describes 'fiat money' in almost exactly the dimensions that you accuse goldbugs of making-up in recent years, which suggests that instead you are making things up.
And yes, Bitcoin isn't backed by a commodity of other value, and yes, it shares that property with fiat money. If you'd simply said that – it is similar to fiat money in this particular way – you'd be on firm ground. The deception you've attempted is the idea that lack-of-collateral-backing is the defining quality of 'fiat money'.
If people using 'fiat money' in its longstanding sense sound ridiculous to you, it's your stubbornly-eccentric definition that should change.