> No, that's a plain fact. Nobody ever buys security as an end unto itself. a thing that can't be taken away from you due to security characteristics of the me

> No, that's a plain fact. Nobody ever buys security as an end unto itself. a thing that can't be taken away from you due to security characteristics of the medium - that's very much a factor in purchasing decision. among many other factors. different people value different factors, so just be reasonable and admit that you can't know how are those factors valued by all the purchasers. > Which in the case of Bitcoin is by a vast majority "getting rich". you may be out of touch a little. there are phases in every investment vehicle and while bitcoin is still in price discovery, there definitely are people who are in it to get rich quick, but as volatility goes down and actually valuable characteristics are becoming more widely known, the proportion of those people goes down. > With any other kind of security, you don't need to spend 10 times as much to protect a 10 times higher value why not? maybe the coefficients are off, but the more value you want to secure - the more you have to pay. that's how it works literally everywhere in the world. > there is a possibility of security getting cheaper due to advances in technology. maybe there are and maybe we will discover them in future, but the thing at hand that we're discussing is whether or not to call "wasteful" the process via which wealth ownership is secured by energy consumption.