4 ms·

> Lots of assets have value without people buying things with them. Gold, houses, stocks, etc. That value is predicated on the notion that they're worth someth

> Lots of assets have value without people buying things with them. Gold, houses, stocks, etc. That value is predicated on the notion that they're worth something to the holder apart from their market price. Gold can be used for jewelry and electronics manufacturing. In that sense it is a natural resource. Stocks are shares in a company that runs a business or multiple businesses that could be profitable. Companies have financial obligations to their shareholders. People live in houses. Bitcoin's only function is to be exchanged. If no one is willing to give you anything for your bitcoin, it is completely worthless-- maybe even less than worthless when you factor transaction costs. The idea that it is a "store of value" is still predicated on bitcoin being a viable and accepted medium of exchange. This is different from a house, which you can still use even if no one will buy it. This is different from gold, as it is very hard to imagine a scenario where absolutely no one would buy your gold for at least for manufacturing. This is different from stocks, where the financial obligations to you can only be cleared by legal proceedings such as Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

emodendroket 9y ago
Besides that, there's a certain shifting of the goalposts going on when people who used to talk about Bitcoin replacing all the world's currencies instead start talking about the rising value of Bitcoin.
- EnFinlay 9y ago
  My bet is that they're different people motivated by different things.
moduspol 9y ago
Bitcoin absolutely can still be exchanged, and (in many cases) far more easily and cheaper than gold. It can also be stored and secured much cheaper, and even large amounts can be easily taken across borders. That is real value, even if transaction fees are high, and even if you don't directly buy things with it.
- Goladus 9y ago
  Yes, gold is a very special case. Gold also has a very, very long history of being used as a global currency, which lends far more confidence in it than is probably warranted. Bitcoin has not even 10 years of history as a currency, and most of that time the system was propped up by an inflation mechanism that will soon cease to exist (and is already mostly ineffective), and the rest has been fueled by speculative mania. Compared to gold, it is utterly unproven for the role. There is no reason to think that Bitcoin is in any real position to replace gold in its role as a "store of value."
  - moduspol 9y ago
    I'm not arguing it will. I'm arguing it can function as a store of value despite not being used to buy things, or having a secondary material usage.
    - Goladus 9y ago
      Yes, but nearly anything can function as a store of value by that standard. While it's true Bitcoin has name recognition and that is an advantage, it's not exactly a big advantage.
hateduser2 9y ago
And what is jewelry’s worth? What is fine arts worth? What is fiat currency worth? The world is chock full of goods with no inherent value. None. Fine art is worth a lot BECAUSE it is worth a lot. Kim kardashian is famous for being famous. It’s clear the world is not utilitarian.
- Goladus 9y ago
  Jewelry and artwork are used for adornment and to signal status. Artwork is also used to decorate or define your living space or working space. It can manipulate your emotional state, serve as a conversation piece at parties, or signal some other trait about you. Artwork is also used to express ideas. Is really high-end collectable artwork from famous dead artists priced far higher than its utility should warrant? Most likely this is because they're used as a store of value. The reasons why artwork became a convenient store of value are probably interesting and might be worth comparing on a detailed level with bitcoin-- but the simple fact that fine art exists as a store of value does not mean that just any arbitrary exchangeable item is likely to fill a similar role. Kim Kardashian's story is a lot more nuanced than you give it credit for. Many famous socialites quickly fade back into relative obscurity. Kardashian (in full club get-up, anyway) was strikingly beautiful, had a bold but impeccable sense of style, and a willingness to repeatedly expose her personal life to the public. She proved to have a better-than-average ability to entertain audiences on her reality TV show, even if that ability wouldn't fit into any traditional definition of an entertainer. Fiat currency has no value beyond its utility as a medium of exchange (or store of value). But then, my whole point is to distinguish currency from other types of assets.

emodendroket 9y ago

Besides that, there's a certain shifting of the goalposts going on when people who used to talk about Bitcoin replacing all the world's currencies instead start talking about the rising value of Bitcoin.

EnFinlay 9y ago
My bet is that they're different people motivated by different things.

moduspol 9y ago

Bitcoin absolutely can still be exchanged, and (in many cases) far more easily and cheaper than gold. It can also be stored and secured much cheaper, and even large amounts can be easily taken across borders. That is real value, even if transaction fees are high, and even if you don't directly buy things with it.

Goladus 9y ago
Yes, gold is a very special case. Gold also has a very, very long history of being used as a global currency, which lends far more confidence in it than is probably warranted. Bitcoin has not even 10 years of history as a currency, and most of that time the system was propped up by an inflation mechanism that will soon cease to exist (and is already mostly ineffective), and the rest has been fueled by speculative mania. Compared to gold, it is utterly unproven for the role. There is no reason to think that Bitcoin is in any real position to replace gold in its role as a "store of value."
- moduspol 9y ago
  I'm not arguing it will. I'm arguing it can function as a store of value despite not being used to buy things, or having a secondary material usage.
  - Goladus 9y ago
    Yes, but nearly anything can function as a store of value by that standard. While it's true Bitcoin has name recognition and that is an advantage, it's not exactly a big advantage.

hateduser2 9y ago

And what is jewelry’s worth? What is fine arts worth? What is fiat currency worth? The world is chock full of goods with no inherent value. None. Fine art is worth a lot BECAUSE it is worth a lot. Kim kardashian is famous for being famous. It’s clear the world is not utilitarian.

Goladus 9y ago
Jewelry and artwork are used for adornment and to signal status. Artwork is also used to decorate or define your living space or working space. It can manipulate your emotional state, serve as a conversation piece at parties, or signal some other trait about you. Artwork is also used to express ideas. Is really high-end collectable artwork from famous dead artists priced far higher than its utility should warrant? Most likely this is because they're used as a store of value. The reasons why artwork became a convenient store of value are probably interesting and might be worth comparing on a detailed level with bitcoin-- but the simple fact that fine art exists as a store of value does not mean that just any arbitrary exchangeable item is likely to fill a similar role. Kim Kardashian's story is a lot more nuanced than you give it credit for. Many famous socialites quickly fade back into relative obscurity. Kardashian (in full club get-up, anyway) was strikingly beautiful, had a bold but impeccable sense of style, and a willingness to repeatedly expose her personal life to the public. She proved to have a better-than-average ability to entertain audiences on her reality TV show, even if that ability wouldn't fit into any traditional definition of an entertainer. Fiat currency has no value beyond its utility as a medium of exchange (or store of value). But then, my whole point is to distinguish currency from other types of assets.