> Sigh. The only sense in which it "solves" the Two Generals Problem is the sense in which it will, over the course of decades, create a rainbow table for it. N

> Sigh. The only sense in which it "solves" the Two Generals Problem is the sense in which it will, over the course of decades, create a rainbow table for it. None of the work being done is in any way socially useful (a crypto coin based on, say, folding proteins actually produces a social good and so could be equity based). That is by design. Doing useful work would hurt the network's security. > Decentralized proof of a transaction having occurred is in principle valuable, but the token itself is not the store of value. The reason it is accurately described as a pyramid scheme is because holding bitcoin for the purpose of reselling it is exactly like holding a baseball card, or a share in Bernie Madoff's hedge fund: it is based on the premise that someone will come along and pay you more for it than you paid, despite no actual appreciation in any fundamental value. What you described more closely fits the definition of a "bubble", not a "pyramid scheme". I agree that Bitcoin could be qualified as a "bubble" in the way you describe it. That is, similarly to paper money or gold, its price is completely disconnected from its "intrinsic" value.