>It’s the bitcoin of yestercentury. It doesn’t display wealth - it proves effort has been spent for something that’s mostly (or entirely) useless. Quite, but no

>It’s the bitcoin of yestercentury. It doesn’t display wealth - it proves effort has been spent for something that’s mostly (or entirely) useless. Quite, but not exactly sunk cost. I really like that, bitcoin as the diamond of yesteryear. Effectively finite, has to be mined, only has value/importance because a group of people assign it one, has limited practical use (diamonds as abrasives mostly, bitcoin as a cookie crumb record of transactions) is seen as foolish/wasteful by others, you can't use either for practical trade as the vast majority of individuals/companies don't accept either for trade and both could easily be rendered worthless by a technological advancement or social change.