Cash has economical value, digital barter is only good if the token is guaranteed to be connected to the real source of value. ICO craze shown us that it's very easy to fake it...
'Cash' IS a token e.g. in uk all bank notes say 'I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of...' It's a Bank of England 'Token'......which in 2008 turned out not to be as well connected to real sources of value as everyone thought.
You are diverging from the context. Here we call BCH cash, which is not a token but real source of value (backed up by POW)
semantics. But fair enough. To your original point, basically i think dividend paying tokens are the future & whatever 'gas' they pay out is the future of cash. Hence BCH needs tokens
They are always over priced. There's no real way to give them value and if I believed in that vision I would definitely spend my time on Ethereum which is miles ahead of others.
It is & i do. But BCH doesn't need ethereum level complexity but it does need more than e.g. nano. There's a goldilocks zone an BCH needs to occupy it.
In the US cash is only good to pay off debts (ie, "for all debts public and private"). Odd how that's opposite but functionally the same.
Clearly you can buy other things lol...
As far as I understand it, you're not "buying" anything: 1) You are given an item, 2) You incur a debt for that item, 3) then you pay off the debt with cash.
What about charity? Is that debt also?
I would view charity as gifting "tokens (cash) good for wiping out debt". However, as far as the law is concerned, I'm none the wiser...
