4 ms·
The Zimbabwe government forced everyone to use their currency (Zimbabwe dollar, up until 2008 iirc, pretty sure they still have problems today...). Of course fo
by sedeki 7y ago
The Zimbabwe government forced everyone to use their currency (Zimbabwe dollar, up until 2008 iirc, pretty sure they still have problems today...). Of course forcing everyone to use this currency created artificial demand for it. However, I don't see why adding "artificial demand" is an argument against bitcoin.
EDIT: But sure, if government-backed means they force people to accept the currency, then it will have value. I don't see this as a good selling point though. Not trying to be sarcastic.
- pmiller2 7y agoHaving value isn’t a selling point? You’re digging yourself into a hole here.
- sedeki 7y agoI was referring to government force. "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- pmiller2 7y agoYou said it had value. That’s literally what you wrote. The reason is irrelevant. Value is value. If you could think of a way to show BTC has value, I’d accept that as a selling point of BTC.
- sedeki 7y agoBy that reasoning the Zimbabwe dollar had value, because it was ”””backed by the government””” according to your own definition! Of course it did not! Money or money supply should not be determined by government, it should be a result of market mechanisms!