5 ms·

Nothing in the _world_ has intrinsic value. Obviously, this an opinion, but I do believe it has strong epistemological backing. An easy overview of the opinion

Nothing in the _world_ has intrinsic value. Obviously, this an opinion, but I do believe it has strong epistemological backing. An easy overview of the opinion by wired: https://www.wired.com/story/bitcoin-has-no-intrinsic-value-neither-does-a-dollar1-bill/ https://www.wired.com/story/bitcoin-has-no-intrinsic-value-n..., a 1970s era discussion by a historian economist: https://fee.org/articles/the-fallacy-of-intrinsic-value/ https://fee.org/articles/the-fallacy-of-intrinsic-value/, and a deep dive the theory itself: https://mises.org/library/introduction-value-theory https://mises.org/library/introduction-value-theory Now i'm not expecting nor wanting to get into a debate about the theory of value. I do not expect to be able to win, nor do I want to, but I do hope some doubt is cast into the proposition: > Matches have a value, you light them and they produce a certain amount of energy Matches have a _utility_, not necessarily a value. Additionally, compute is _also_ just "burning resources", only its electricity instead of potassium chlorate. Arguably a more fungible form. > regardless of the fact that it has no debt instruments, lacks liquidity and is completely unregulated and prone to theft. Only one of the four accusations stands up to any critical thought - which is that it is "completely unregulated". If that is the core of your argument against distributed, trustless currency, then that argument applies equally to all pre Federal Reserve transactions the world over, and I'm not sure what the implied problem is. The best quote from the first and most approachable of the links above: > All new mediums of exchange spawn skepticism, and should. For much of the 19th century, paper money was held in ill repute because it seemed so ephemeral and detached from value that could be easily recognized: land, gold, size of armies.

stillbourne 8y ago
Labor is the principal value of a currency. I'm guessing you are a libertarian. Maybe you should learn about how commerce, financial instruments, and debt work before saying money has no intrinsic value. Otherwise, if money has no intrinsic value then why work for it? Maybe we should go be communists. As Labor is the principal value of currency, so is debt the obligations of its members. When you get a loan you are not just getting money for interest over time, a group of loans can be packaged into bonds and the bonds can be sold by the lender as a lien against the debt. You get money, the bank gets interest and the bond holders get a percentage. Tell me, where can I get a loan for bitcoin from a FDIC lender? Someone I know who will be honest and not Gox me. Is spent compute the same as labor? Can a thing that computes a thing that stores a thing that hashes a thing that shows that a transaction for a thing happens have a value greater than the things I do for my career? Because to me blockchain is a waste of energy and Energy used for Compute, aka Entropy, has no value.
- cyphar 8y ago
  I would argue (though this is getting more philosophical) that time is what has intrinsic value (or rather, time saved), since we all have a limited amount of time. Labour is how time gets saved -- one person spends their time doing something so that another person doesn't need to spend their time on it, and thus the person spending the time gets some money as a token for the time they spent. (But I agree with your point.)
  - stillbourne 8y ago
    I disagree, if time were the intrinsic value then all workers would receive the same disbursement amounts. As Labor also requires Skill and Proficiency those combine to adjust the value of the Labor.
    - sparkie 8y ago
      People with more skill and proficiency don't need to sacrifice as much of their time to provide the basic sustenance they need to live. They can sacrifice a bit more of their time to earn a bit more and improve their standard of living though. The most skilled have the leisure to work when they want and for who they want, because those skills are in high demand and people are willing to pay more for them. Time is the sacrifice. If everybody could have a high standard of living and not work, most would chose not to work and spend that time with their families instead. Obviously, there are some who find meaning or purpose in a lifestyle of work, and chose to do so even if they don't need the compensation which comes out of it. Each to his own.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      Skill and proficiency took the worker time to attain through training and experience, and more skilled workers can save more time (either now through efficiency, or in the future by doing a better job).
      - stillbourne 8y ago
        That is not correct. A person who flips burgers and a person who is going to school to learn a trade are both using an equal amount of time. The latter however expended more effort to obtain a skill set and effort and labor are equivalent. A 40 year old who works 12 hour shifts to make ends meet can use more time than an individual who expended effort to train a skill to proficiency and enter a labor market. Additionally, we can have 2 individuals who both spent time training a skill set. One can end up more proficient than the other despite time or effort spent as despite the old adage not everyone is created equal. Some are prodigiously gifted. One person may struggle through his tutelage while the other breezes through. In the end they both put in the same time, 4yrs, do they get paid the same because they put in the same time? On the contrary, I went to school with several people that made it through the program for CS and got the paper, but are working in hospitality, warehouses, or sheet metal. They put in equal time do they all get paid equally?

stillbourne 8y ago

Labor is the principal value of a currency. I'm guessing you are a libertarian. Maybe you should learn about how commerce, financial instruments, and debt work before saying money has no intrinsic value. Otherwise, if money has no intrinsic value then why work for it? Maybe we should go be communists. As Labor is the principal value of currency, so is debt the obligations of its members. When you get a loan you are not just getting money for interest over time, a group of loans can be packaged into bonds and the bonds can be sold by the lender as a lien against the debt. You get money, the bank gets interest and the bond holders get a percentage. Tell me, where can I get a loan for bitcoin from a FDIC lender? Someone I know who will be honest and not Gox me. Is spent compute the same as labor? Can a thing that computes a thing that stores a thing that hashes a thing that shows that a transaction for a thing happens have a value greater than the things I do for my career? Because to me blockchain is a waste of energy and Energy used for Compute, aka Entropy, has no value.

cyphar 8y ago
I would argue (though this is getting more philosophical) that time is what has intrinsic value (or rather, time saved), since we all have a limited amount of time. Labour is how time gets saved -- one person spends their time doing something so that another person doesn't need to spend their time on it, and thus the person spending the time gets some money as a token for the time they spent. (But I agree with your point.)
- stillbourne 8y ago
  I disagree, if time were the intrinsic value then all workers would receive the same disbursement amounts. As Labor also requires Skill and Proficiency those combine to adjust the value of the Labor.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    People with more skill and proficiency don't need to sacrifice as much of their time to provide the basic sustenance they need to live. They can sacrifice a bit more of their time to earn a bit more and improve their standard of living though. The most skilled have the leisure to work when they want and for who they want, because those skills are in high demand and people are willing to pay more for them. Time is the sacrifice. If everybody could have a high standard of living and not work, most would chose not to work and spend that time with their families instead. Obviously, there are some who find meaning or purpose in a lifestyle of work, and chose to do so even if they don't need the compensation which comes out of it. Each to his own.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    Skill and proficiency took the worker time to attain through training and experience, and more skilled workers can save more time (either now through efficiency, or in the future by doing a better job).
    - stillbourne 8y ago
      That is not correct. A person who flips burgers and a person who is going to school to learn a trade are both using an equal amount of time. The latter however expended more effort to obtain a skill set and effort and labor are equivalent. A 40 year old who works 12 hour shifts to make ends meet can use more time than an individual who expended effort to train a skill to proficiency and enter a labor market. Additionally, we can have 2 individuals who both spent time training a skill set. One can end up more proficient than the other despite time or effort spent as despite the old adage not everyone is created equal. Some are prodigiously gifted. One person may struggle through his tutelage while the other breezes through. In the end they both put in the same time, 4yrs, do they get paid the same because they put in the same time? On the contrary, I went to school with several people that made it through the program for CS and got the paper, but are working in hospitality, warehouses, or sheet metal. They put in equal time do they all get paid equally?