> You can argue that asset prices should be derived from future cash flows, and hence, both Bitcoin and gold should be almost worthless. Which points to what I

> You can argue that asset prices should be derived from future cash flows, and hence, both Bitcoin and gold should be almost worthless. Which points to what IMO underpins whatever Bitcoin's underlying value is: a fear - or for some a hope - that typical vehicles investments will have precipitously declining future cash flow. In that way it's like gold (minus the part about being pretty and useful for selling overpriced audio cables - is that still a thing?). Unlike gold, though, it's in a way harder to secure, either by individuals or governments, because it isn't held behind physical security measures. Rather it's subject to the same large scale attacks as any other information on the Internet.