3 ms·

That is not my position. I do believe that BTC would also go for $3. But the only reason is that holders of BTC have so far managed to convince holders of oth

That is not my position. I do believe that BTC would also go for $3. But the only reason is that holders of BTC have so far managed to convince holders of other currencies that BTC has some intrinsic worth when, in fact, it has none (other than money laundering, frankly, which is no small thing, but not something people should be investing in). That's why I believe it doesn't belong in the same category as commodities or currencies. It's a huge bubble, and it will be very, very bad when it bursts.

BlueTemplar 7y ago
But there's no such thing as "intrinsic worth"... It's all about supply and demand!
- camgunz 7y ago
  Nah I don't buy that (oooh econ pun!). There are basic human needs: food, water, shelter, medicine, socialization. Goods and services that fulfill those needs have intrinsic worth (to humans). When those goods and services are valued primarily in a given currency (i.e. GBP, USD, EUR), that currency gains worth rooted in the intrinsic worth of those goods and services. And even abstract financial instruments like mortgages, REITs, bonds, CDSs, CDs, shares of commodities, etc. are based on these fundamental things. Bonds are based on currencies--which are only worth anything if they're the primary denomination of goods/services with intrinsic worth. REITs, mortgages, etc. represent shelter. Commodities represent food, water, and medicine. BTC represents... nothing? Energy loss? Honestly there's no analog. Snake oil is still oil, selling someone air--they still get air. And sure, you can still argue "well camgunz, even if it's literally nothing, if people want it, they'll put a price on it". But... isn't that really just super bad, like collapse of the civilization bad if it ever gets to scale? We really shouldn't be convincing people to turn their money into absolutely nothing. That seems very obviously not a good idea.
  - BlueTemplar 7y ago
    The worth of "food, water, shelter, medicine, socialization", financial instruments (including cryptocurrencies) depends on context. For instance water might be extremely precious in some situations (if you're dying of thirst), and have zero, or even negative value in others (like during a flood, because you want to get rid of excess water, even if if by some miracle it happened to stay pure). Hence, no "intrinsic" worth.
    - camgunz 7y ago
      There's a difference between "can sometimes have negative value" and "can never, ever have any intrinsic worth". You're confusing the two here. Or, to put it a different way, BTC isn't any less bankrupt because we sometimes grow too much corn. It's a complete non sequitur.

BlueTemplar 7y ago

But there's no such thing as "intrinsic worth"... It's all about supply and demand!

camgunz 7y ago
Nah I don't buy that (oooh econ pun!). There are basic human needs: food, water, shelter, medicine, socialization. Goods and services that fulfill those needs have intrinsic worth (to humans). When those goods and services are valued primarily in a given currency (i.e. GBP, USD, EUR), that currency gains worth rooted in the intrinsic worth of those goods and services. And even abstract financial instruments like mortgages, REITs, bonds, CDSs, CDs, shares of commodities, etc. are based on these fundamental things. Bonds are based on currencies--which are only worth anything if they're the primary denomination of goods/services with intrinsic worth. REITs, mortgages, etc. represent shelter. Commodities represent food, water, and medicine. BTC represents... nothing? Energy loss? Honestly there's no analog. Snake oil is still oil, selling someone air--they still get air. And sure, you can still argue "well camgunz, even if it's literally nothing, if people want it, they'll put a price on it". But... isn't that really just super bad, like collapse of the civilization bad if it ever gets to scale? We really shouldn't be convincing people to turn their money into absolutely nothing. That seems very obviously not a good idea.
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  The worth of "food, water, shelter, medicine, socialization", financial instruments (including cryptocurrencies) depends on context. For instance water might be extremely precious in some situations (if you're dying of thirst), and have zero, or even negative value in others (like during a flood, because you want to get rid of excess water, even if if by some miracle it happened to stay pure). Hence, no "intrinsic" worth.
  - camgunz 7y ago
    There's a difference between "can sometimes have negative value" and "can never, ever have any intrinsic worth". You're confusing the two here. Or, to put it a different way, BTC isn't any less bankrupt because we sometimes grow too much corn. It's a complete non sequitur.