Bitcoin

[aociswundumho]

So. during WWII no one should have been forced to ration?

What about a situation of dire emergency, women and children first, or you get what you can get?

The fact that you have to use lifeboat scenarios and hard cases to try to make your point indicates how weak your position is.

And what does any of this have to do with fiat currency or bitcoin?

 

[Econ4every1]

The fact that you have to use lifeboat scenarios and hard cases to try to make your point indicates how weak your position is.

The fact that you didn't answer it exposes your untenable position.

And what does any of this have to do with fiat currency or bitcoin?

Yes, I would dodge that question too if I were you, a question that should be easy. I mean, women and children first, right?

Apparently not, because something so simple comes into conflict with the selfishness of your ideology. It's all about allowing selfish people to be selfish out of fear that someone might make you do something you don't want to.

 

[aociswundumho]

with the selfishness of your ideology.

Dood, we are all primarily self-interested, and you are no exception. It's the main reason why government works so badly. I started a thread on it a while ago:

Thread 'Why Government Is a Deeply Flawed Institution: A Clear and Concise Explanation'

Feb 28, 2025

Ask yourself this: what percentage of your time and money is spent on people you don’t know? The answer is close to zero. Nearly 100% of your time and money goes to yourself and your family. Then come your close friends. After that, your casual friends and acquaintances. Strangers don’t even make the list.

In reality - not in the fantasy world of rhetoric - you don’t give a shit about strangers. Even if you volunteered at a soup kitchen for an hour and a half every week for your entire life, that’s still less than one percent of your time. Don't feel bad; we're all pretty much the same in...

• aociswundumho
• Replies: 89
• Forum: DP Blogs

• 

 

[Dans La Lune]

No, investing in crypto is smart. Fiat currency is the biggest con ever devised.

Well, those are certainly words.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Sure, as long as it's voluntary.

Making money off the back of society's resources and infrastructure is required to produce wealth. A society wouldn't even exist in your world. Thus, no wealth.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Do you believe in shared sacrifice?

Boy are you asking the wrong poster. He doesn't even believe in society.

 

[Gatsby]

The fact that bitcoin has been around for 10+ years and it still solves no problems should pretty strongly indicate that cryptocurrency is a waste of time and effort. The only use cases for bitcoin are:

• "Investing" in it, in the hopes that some greater fool will pay you even more for it.
• Doing crime.
• Escaping from Venezuela in the middle of the night.

If you don't recognize yourself in any of those use cases, then I question what possible use bitcoin is.

 

[Econ4every1]

Dood, we are all primarily self-interested, and you are no exception.

That's just it, you view the world as binary choices, you fear nuance based on evidence and reason.

Are people self-interested? Of course, but can the same person see the value in shared mandatory sacrifice? Yes.

That's why I ask you extreme questions, because it exposes the absurdity of your arguments. Not that nothing you've said has any merit, it's that any ideology that might appear to have merit, if it admits to no exceptions ends up causing as much harm as good.

There is no Utopia, Socialist, Liberal, Conservative or Libertarian. The best nation we can create is one in which we can look at the positives and negatives of each and throw away the parts that don't work and empisize the ones that do.

That is the hardest society to create, but it's also the strongest.

There's not a lot of room here, but here are some examples in a generallyAmerican context.

Socialism

Good: Social Safety Nets (e.g., Social Security, Medicare). These programs, while debated, are often seen as providing a crucial safety net and preventing widespread poverty, aligning with a desire for societal well-being and collective responsibility.

Bad: Centralized Economic Planning/State Control over Industry. This is often viewed with skepticism due to concerns about efficiency, innovation, individual liberty, and potential for government overreach, clashing with American ideals of free markets and limited government.

Capitalism

Good: Innovation and Economic Growth. Capitalism is widely credited with fostering competition, technological advancement, and a high standard of living due to its emphasis on individual initiative and free markets. This aligns strongly with the "American Dream" and upward mobility.

Bad: Wealth Inequality and Economic Instability (e.g., recessions, Great Depression). Critics argue that unfettered capitalism can lead to significant disparities in wealth and income, and can be prone to boom-and-bust cycles that negatively impact many citizens.

Liberalism

Generally Perceived Good: Civil Rights and Social Justice Movements (e.g., desegregation, LGBTQ+ rights). Liberalism's emphasis on individual rights, equality, and social progress has been instrumental in expanding protections and opportunities for marginalized groups, aligning with core American principles of freedom and equality.

Conservatism

Generally Perceived Good: Emphasis on Traditional Values and Strong Institutions (e.g., family, rule of law, national defense). Conservatism often champions stability, order, and the preservation of long-standing American institutions, seen as vital for a cohesive and secure society.

Capitalist Libertarianism

Generally Perceived Good: Individual Liberty and Limited Government Intervention. Libertarianism's strong advocacy for individual freedom, free markets, and minimal government interference resonates with foundational American ideals of self-reliance and liberty from governmental control.

Now that's some real off-the-cuff ideas, so don't delve to deep, and yes, some of those ideas might come into conflict, but that's as American as apple pie, the secret sauce of America is pluralism, the capacity to resolve our differences and use what works. To tolerate differences even if we cannot accept them. To be motivated by logic and reason, not fear.

 

[aociswundumho]

The fact that bitcoin has been around for 10+ years and it still solves no problems

This is the problem it solves:

 

[Econ4every1]

The fact that bitcoin has been around for 10+ years and it still solves no problems should pretty strongly indicate that cryptocurrency is a waste of time and effort. The only use cases for bitcoin are:

• "Investing" in it, in the hopes that some greater fool will pay you even more for it.
• Doing crime.
• Escaping from Venezuela in the middle of the night.

If you don't recognize yourself in any of those use cases, then I question what possible use bitcoin is.

A solution in search of a problem.

But, since it's yet another way for the the wealthy to redistribute wealth to the top under the guise of "investment" (read: speculation), they will promote it to the masses.

At least with stocks, there are wealthy people who have to build real businesses and who have a shared stake in success and failure. There are real, tangible signs of a companies prosperity or failure. When I bought 1000 shares of Intel@$17, I knew I was gambling with that money. But I also know there are real people that work there, that make a very important product, and there is a small, but very real and tangible chance that Intel could come back, and my investment could pay of in 5, 10, 20 years. about 5% of what I invest is very high risk with very high reward, I don't risk what I can't lose. Could I have put that money in BTC and made more? Sure, but I consider that entire operation unethical and destructive to the American, and the world economy.

All of this is to say, that with BTC or any other crypto, it's just a guess. There is nothing real or tangible, if those with the most invested have any influence on the system at all, it is entirely in their favor. There is no real product to evaluate, to assess risk.

Further, BTC draws money away from legitimate investment, making businesses weaker, which reduces real wealth, which in turn devalues the real money (dollars) everyone is so desperate to try to win playing crypto markets.

For every winner, there is at least one loser.

/Soap box

 

[aociswundumho]

That's just it, you view the world as binary choices, you fear nuance based on evidence and reason.

Are people self-interested? Of course,

Then why do you expect politicians to do what's best for the country instead of what's best for themselves?

There are over 10,000 registered lobbyists in DC, and probably twice that unregistered. What do you think they do all day?

but can the same person see the value in shared mandatory sacrifice? Yes.

That's why I ask you extreme questions, because it exposes the absurdity of your arguments. Not that nothing you've said has any merit, it's that any ideology that might appear to have merit, if it admits to no exceptions ends up causing as much harm as good.

There is no Utopia, Socialist, Liberal, Conservative or Libertarian.

Except it's libertarian authors who invented and use the phrase "utopia is not an option", not communists or socialists like you.

Socialism

Good: Social Safety Nets (e.g., Social Security, Medicare). These programs, while debated, are often seen as providing a crucial safety net and preventing widespread poverty, aligning with a desire for societal well-being and collective responsibility.

"Are often seen as"? A statist like you wouldn't write something like that. You would assert they do provide "a crucial safety net" because that's what you believe. My guess is you have AI writing your responses.

Bad: Centralized Economic Planning/State Control over Industry. This is often viewed with skepticism due to concerns about efficiency, innovation, individual liberty, and potential for government overreach, clashing with American ideals of free markets and limited government.

Then you agree we should abolish the fed and stop central planners from controlling interest rates and the money supply, correct?

Capitalism

Good: Innovation and Economic Growth. Capitalism is widely credited with fostering competition, technological advancement, and a high standard of living due to its emphasis on individual initiative and free markets. This aligns strongly with the "American Dream" and upward mobility.

Bad: Wealth Inequality and Economic Instability (e.g., recessions, Great Depression). Critics argue that unfettered capitalism can lead to significant disparities in wealth and income, and can be prone to boom-and-bust cycles that negatively impact many citizens.

Liberalism

Generally Perceived Good: Civil Rights and Social Justice Movements (e.g., desegregation, LGBTQ+ rights). Liberalism's emphasis on individual rights, equality, and social progress has been instrumental in expanding protections and opportunities for marginalized groups, aligning with core American principles of freedom and equality.

Conservatism

Generally Perceived Good: Emphasis on Traditional Values and Strong Institutions (e.g., family, rule of law, national defense). Conservatism often champions stability, order, and the preservation of long-standing American institutions, seen as vital for a cohesive and secure society.

Capitalist Libertarianism

Generally Perceived Good: Individual Liberty and Limited Government Intervention. Libertarianism's strong advocacy for individual freedom, free markets, and minimal government interference resonates with foundational American ideals of self-reliance and liberty from governmental control.

This is all AI bullshit. I can smell it a mile away.

 

[Econ4every1]

This is the problem it solves:

View attachment 67579941

If that's a real problem, how could you possibly explain the US as the most powerful nation in the world?

How could you explain a nation with over $180 trillion dollars in real wealth and another $60 trillion in asset wealth (like currencies)?

How could you explain that post WWII as that line falls, America entered it's golden age industrially and for some, real buying power, real benefits relative to time worked?

Why would you post one side of an equation and ignore the other?

Here is the honest presentation of absolute dollar value compared to the number of dollars earned.



So while the value of the dollar has declined, releasing the dollar form an arbitrary limitation, like how much gold our government can acquire, released the economy and improved the lives of most people, not just in the US but globally. Of course, the 1980's and the rise of the Neoliberals has seen that most of the benefits of gone to relatively few people, thus, it's not the relative value of the dollar over time that's the issue, it the distribution of dollars into the hands of very few people.

 

[aociswundumho]

If that's a real problem, how could you possibly explain the US as the most powerful nation in the world?

Being the strongest doesn’t mean you’re healthy, it just means everyone else is worse. The dollar has lost over 95% of its value in the last century. We're powerful in spite of our monetary policy, not because of it.

What exactly is the benefit to the average American of having the government devalue the currency year after year? How does making your savings and wages worth less help anyone but the rotten government and rich people who hold lots of assets?

 

[Econ4every1]

Then why do you expect politicians to do what's best for the country instead of what's best for themselves?

I don't, I expect the people to support a government with strong institutions, rule-of-law, and a culture of morals, ethics and virtue and use what little power they have left to put the people in power who will do these things.

We aren't there, in fact we're moving in the wrong direction and have been for some time, but if you want to make "America Great Again", that's the only way to achieve it.

Except it's libertarian authors who invented and use the phrase "utopia is not an option", not communists or socialists like you.

LOL, you want to argue over verbal real estate? How disingenuous.

Then you agree we should abolish the fed and stop central planners from controlling interest rates and the money supply, correct?

No, because the Fed doesn't plan the economy, Congress does. The Fed is independent of Congress. A brilliant system if you ask me (see graph in my post above).

This is all AI bullshit. I can smell it a mile away.

We mock what we cannot understand. And even if it is AI, pointing that out and not addressing the content is just a way to avoid the topic and deflect because you can't come up with answers.

Look, all I have to do to discredit you and show what a monster you and people like you are, is point out that ideologically you think that extorting a helpless woman for sex is legally ok. You think extortion of any kind is legally ok, as long as the person doing the extorting can't be proven to have placed the person their extorting into the position they find themselves in.

That's not hyperbole. That's no strawman, you believe that. That's how F'ed up you are. You're are an unredeemable person and the only reason I engage with you at all is to expose how immoral your ideology is to everyone that reads our conversations.

 

[aociswundumho]

I don't, I expect the people to support a government with strong institutions, rule-of-law, and a culture of morals, ethics and virtue and use what little power they have left to put the people in power who will do these things.

So you agree that politicians generally do what's best for themselves and not what's best for the country. Once you concede that point, all of the other stuff you wrote after it goes down the toilet.

No, because the Fed doesn't plan the economy, Congress does.

The fed setting interest rates and controlling the money supply is a form of central planning. Go ask AI if you don't believe me.

The Fed is independent of Congress. A brilliant system if you ask me (see graph in my post above).

The fed is independent only in theory, e.g. Trump is going to replace Powell with someone who will do what he wants.

We mock what we cannot understand. And even if it is AI, pointing that out and not addressing the content is just a way to avoid the topic and deflect because you can't come up with answers.

No, write your own posts like I do. Try to have an original thought for once instead of copying/pasting AI blather.

Look, all I have to do to discredit you and show what a monster you and people like you are, is point out that ideologically you think that extorting a helpless woman for sex is legally ok. You think extortion of any kind is legally ok, as long as the person doing the extorting can't be proven to have placed the person their extorting into the position they find themselves in.

That's not hyperbole. That's no strawman, you believe that. That's how F'ed up you are. You're are an unredeemable person and the only reason I engage with you at all is to expose how immoral your ideology is to everyone that reads our conversations.

Personal insults will not fix your horseshit arguments.

 

[Econ4every1]

Being the strongest doesn’t mean you’re healthy, it just means everyone else is worse.

Holy s**t...Talk about mental gymnastics.

The dollar has lost over 95% of its value in the last century.

AND.....

The Median income has risen by 6600%, so would you rather have $1000 in 1913 or $67,000 today?

In fact, $1000 was worth about $32,000 today, yet on average the median income is higher, thus people are butter off fanatically, to say nothing of all the goods and services that are available today that weren't in 1913, so we have more money AND the standard of living is higher.

We're powerful in spite of our monetary policy, not because of it.

Money alone won't make a nation powerful, that much is true, but a nation cannot be powerful without money.

What exactly is the benefit to the average American of having the government devalue the currency year after year?

Economic stability.

See the wild year to year swings in the CPI in the 1800's?

Now ignoring the highest peaks of each era, the Post war period has been much more stable than pre-war, thanks to the Fed.

And it's worth noting that inflation that changes from 5% in 2005 to 8% at some point in the future is a change of 3%.

A change from 5% to -3% is a swing of 8%, and that's being kind. There are many, many examples of swings over 5% to swings under -5%.

That is instability. It doesn't create a better economy, it makes things worse.

How does making your savings and wages worth less help anyone but the rotten government and rich people who hold lots of assets?

When the relative value of the dollar declines, the price of labor (which is a price like everything else goes up. Historically much faster than the decline in the value of the dollar. The downside is that increases in the price of labor generally follow the decrease in the relative value of the dollar, but, the fact that wages have increased faster than dollar value declines makes up for that.

As far as your savings, the solution is simple, there a tons of ways to protect your cash from inflation.

wages worth less help anyone but the rotten government and rich people who hold lots of assets?

How does it hurt the poor who don't have much cash?

Wages?

Well, we just discussed the fact that when prices go up, historically wages go up. If you're not happy with recent trends in wages lagging, that's exactly what you can expect in the world you envision. Haves and have nots. The ideology I support, takes taxes from the wealthiest and uses the government power to create new money to provide opportunities to those who cannot afford to improve themselves. In my model, people have health insurance and education, child and eldercare so they can be truly free, not your ridiculous idea of freedom where those with means can economically extort and exploit people into permanent servitude while soothing their conscience into believing that people have "choices" therefore they are just providing a "service".

 

[Econ4every1]

So you agree that politicians generally do what's best for themselves and not what's best for the country.

In the absence of culture that doesn't value ethics and strong institutions that are staffed by career people with experience and degrees in their chosen field. In a political system that believes in legal corruption. Where unlimited private donations are allowed, hidden only by the thinly vailed concept of "PACs". Where private lobbies have more access to your representative than constituents. Where politicians are allowed to invest in companies the committees they sit on and the laws they vote on affect. Where just 435 members of congress are supposed to represent 330 million people (i.e we need much fewer constituents per congress member. If they need to build a new wing onto the capital, then do it).

In that world, yes, I expect that politicians will sometimes do what is best for them.

But I think all of that should be eliminated or changed.

The fed is independent only in theory, e.g. Trump is going to replace Powell with someone who will do what he wants.

Then we need to change that system to.

The system we have was never meant to deal with a person like Trump. There have always been traditions and norms that presidents were just expected to follow. Now in fairness, Presidents have always bumped against the "line" of what they should and shouldn't do. Trump completely ignores it. But Trump is a symptom of a much bigger problem.

No, write your own posts like I do. Try to have an original thought for once instead of copying/pasting AI blather.

If I said I wrote it, you wouldn't believe me anyway, which is why I'm not going to argue that point. But accusing me of that is just your way to deflect from things you cannot justify or rationalize

Personal insults will not fix your horseshit arguments.

Again, you don't deny it.

 

[aociswundumho]

In the absence of culture that doesn't value ethics and strong institutions that are staffed by career people with experience and degrees in their chosen field. In a political system that believes in legal corruption. Where unlimited private donations are allowed, hidden only by the thinly vailed concept of "PACs". Where private lobbies have more access to your representative than constituents. Where politicians are allowed to invest in companies the committees they sit on and the laws they vote on affect. Where just 435 members of congress are supposed to represent 330 million people (i.e we need much fewer constituents per congress member. If they need to build a new wing onto the capital, then do it).

In that world, yes, I expect that politicians will sometimes do what is best for them.

But I think all of that should be eliminated or changed.

So you admit the system is rigged, and your solution is, what, more government? More politicians? A bigger capitol building? That’s like curing alcoholism with vodka. The problem isn’t that we don’t have enough scumbags ruling over us, it’s that they have political power in the first place.

Nothing you can do will change the fact that people are primarily self-interested.

Then we need to change that system to.

The system we have was never meant to deal with a person like Trump. There have always been traditions and norms that presidents were just expected to follow. Now in fairness, Presidents have always bumped against the "line" of what they should and shouldn't do. Trump completely ignores it. But Trump is a symptom of a much bigger problem.

One thing is indisputable: capitalism works a lot better with self-interested people than socialism ever will.

Again, you don't deny it.

If that childish crap is what you're into, then maybe r/politics would be more your speed.

 

[Econ4every1]

So you admit the system is rigged

In a broad sense, I know what you mean by "rigged", but more specially, I think you are wrong about what you think it means.

I think the system is the result is what PC game developers call emergent gameplay. That is, the behavior we see emerges from the system that was created, not as a well executed plan, but as a series of decisions that culminated to produce the system we have. Which is to say, there is not mastermind or small cabal of people pulling strings to reach a certain goal, rather it's the result of many people whose interests have aligned and have the power and influence to push the system in a direction that benefits them individually and coincidently as a group. The farther it goes, and in the absence of a system meant to prevent it, the more likely those individuals will group together to pool their resources to acquire more power an influence, and the government is the only thing that can protect people without power and influence from those with it.

So we can accept that he who has the gold makes the rules, or we can create a system of government to protect the vulnerable from those who would seek to exploit and extort them. The trick is for the bottom 80% to value the role of government and not to be tempted to abuse it for themselves.

So, yes, government is dangerous, it can be corrupted to serve the whims of the wealthy and powerful, but the only other alternative is to simply accept that rule by the wealthy and powerful is all there is.

Getting government right is hard, I don't deny that. I think our society has to hit rock bottom before the current generations learn that lesson. I just hope that I recognize America when/ If we emerge and I'm still alive to see it.

 

[Gatsby]

This is the problem it solves:

View attachment 67579941

The US dollar has historically lost about 2-3% of its value per year. In contrast, Bitcoin regularly gains or loses 50% or more of its value in the span of a few weeks. (And some of bitcoin's fans invest their money in it for precisely that reason.) How exactly does it solve the problem of being a stable store of value?

 

[Econ4every1]

and your solution is, what, more government?

Better government

More politicians?

Better representation

A bigger capitol building?

If we want them to have a place to sit.

That’s like curing alcoholism with vodka.

That's funny, but the alternative is to abandon government and expect that that the power vacuum won't be filled by self-interested private interests that have no allegiance, in theory or in practice, to anyone but themselves and prime shareholders. They have no commitment, in theory or in practice to the nation or fellow citizens, to act ethically, to be truthful or transparent. You think the market will dictate that, but your wrong, in the world you envision, something is only wrong if you aren't the one in total control of information.

So, if were to take your vodka example, your solution is like taking moonshine, pouring it on the ground, lighting it on fire and standing in it. I mean, it will, after a period of intense pain and burning agony solve your problem, in a way I guess.

Nothing you can do will change the fact that people are primarily self-interested.

Some sure. But some, like me, balance our self-interests with the interest of our fellow citizens and our fellow human beings, and while we struggle to live the courage of our convictions, we advocate for a society that is better than we are as individuals.

One thing is indisputable: capitalism works a lot better with self-interested people than socialism ever will.

I like the best of both. I believe in private ownership of the means of production where private ownership cannot be used to exploit and extort people. In other words, there are parts of the economy where private ownership is the way to go, and others that it is not.

See that's what I mean by the fact that you're binary. You lack creativity.

If that childish crap is what you're into, then maybe r/politics would be more your speed.

Sounds like I hit a nerve. Look all you have to do to put me in my place is to deny that you believe in a system that, for all intents and purposes, allows rape though exploitation and extortion.

Yes, I called you some mildly offensive names and I apologize. I don't want you to use that as an excuse to avoid admitting that your ideology is based entirely on exploitation and extortion of your fellow human beings.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

I see the claim made that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value a lot.

Any pure monetary good doesn't have any "intrinsic value". That is, outside of its use as money and is a store of value.

The US dollar is a perfect example. I mean, you could make a little fire with them, but you can't eat them. They don't have any other value in them at all. They're just paper. And we are most certainly headed to an all digital monetary landscape sooner rather than later. We're mostly there already. Cash is still in play, but eventually it probably won't be.

But I would also make the argument that if only thing Bitcoin does becomes a reliable store of value, then its intrinsic value is in that. That is extremely valuable.

And in my opinion Bitcoin is the most pristine and perfect engineered value store mankind has ever discovered or created. It is not controlled by a central authority, so it cannot be manipulated outside of a free market.

The brilliant John Nash wrote a very interesting paper and gave lectures on "asymptotic ideal money." In this, he outlined basically what Bitcoin is. This is worth a read if you want to hear an elegant explanation for why Bitcoin could be ideal money.

Fermat's Library | Ideal Money and Asymptotically Ideal Money annotated/explained version.

Fermat's Library is a platform for illuminating academic papers.

fermatslibrary.com

Now, in reading this, you will see that Nash was obviously not a Keynesian, but most likely resonated with the Austrian School of economic Ideas.

For what it's worth, Nash is considered by some people as a prime suspect for who Satoshi actually was. I rejected this idea out of hand at first, mostly based on his age and his skill set, but over time I realized he fits it quite well. Might have been him. But that doesn't matter because there is no central authority in Bitcoin, not even Satoshi.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

The US dollar has historically lost about 2-3% of its value per year. In contrast, Bitcoin regularly gains or loses 50% or more of its value in the span of a few weeks. (And some of bitcoin's fans invest their money in it for precisely that reason.) How exactly does it solve the problem of being a stable store of value?

Over a long enough time horizon, Bitcoin has been one of the best stores of value on he planet for the past 15+ years. I personally think this is the case because it was intentionally engineered to be exactly that.

You're absolutely correct that it can be extremely volatile.

I think there are two reasons for this. First, it is an real free market. In fact, it's arguably the freest market we've ever seen. Secondly, it is still bootstrapping as an asset. Until very recently, it was a very small percentage of people on the earth that were buying it, selling it, trading it, holding it, whatever.

Only time will tell, but I believe there will come a time where Bitcoin's price becomes much more stable. In fact, if you look at the historical chart, it's already beginning to do that somewhat.

However, this is going to take some time and I personally believe we've still got some really big moves down and up before it starts to flatten out a little.

 

[Econ4every1]

Any pure monetary good doesn't have any "intrinsic value".

For the record, I've never made that argument. I've said that it's value is purely based on market speculation.

Thus it's has no intrinsic or extrinsic value. It's value isn't based on labor or inputs or outputs.

Speculation of a virtual "good" is a bad idea. At least speculation on property, even if it's market value declines in currency in question, you still have the real property.

Speculation on a largely unregulated virtual good is a plan for disaster for most of the people that are involved in it. If you wanted to create a currency that could totally destabilize a market overnight, promote BTC or it's cousins as "real money"...

The US dollar is a perfect example. I mean, you could make a little fire with them, but you can't eat them. They don't have any other value in them at all. They're just paper. And we are most certainly headed to an all digital monetary landscape sooner rather than later. We're mostly there already. Cash is still in play, but eventually it probably won't be.

But that's just it. The dollars value is tied to real social, political and economic systems based on contracts (rule-of-law), alliances and treaties, the capacity to enforce it's value and maintain the systems that ensure accurate accounting and maintain stability.

BTC has NONE of that. It is largely unregulated speculative market. The single biggest use of BTC as a currency is to commit crimes. Otherwise, it makes a terrible currency because it lacks any sort of stability because of what I described above.

But I would also make the argument that if only thing Bitcoin does becomes a reliable store of value, then its intrinsic value is in that. That is extremely valuable.

The only theory of value that would agree is the subjective theory of value. But subjective ideas are just that, each persons individual idea of value, which, because it's not grounded in anything tangible. it is subject to price fluctuations and crashes. As institutional investors use their collective power to manipulate BTC, small predictable moves in value can and will be used to extract value from those without similar power.

And in my opinion Bitcoin is the most pristine and perfect engineered value store mankind has ever discovered or created. It is not controlled by a central authority, so it cannot be manipulated outside of a free market.

"Free Market" is little more than a euphemism for "lawless market" and it would result in a system that is an order of magnitude worse than we have today. I hope we never have to learn that lesson.

Austrian School of economic Ideas.

And there is the rub...

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Thus it's has no intrinsic or extrinsic value. It's value isn't based on labor or inputs or outputs.

You could not be more wrong about this in my opinion.

Bitcoin's generation mechanism and security mechanism is pure energy. The name of the function it uses, designed by a cryptographer named Adam Back, is "proof of work". And this is a good name since energy is fundamentally what work is made of.

Henry Ford actually prophesied the creation of an energy-based money over a hundred years ago.

So, many would propose that Bitcoin derives its initial value from the input of energy.