4 ms·
There are two aspects of "money" - store of value and medium of exchange. > Trying to simplify it into a narrower definition of currency is like trying to fit
by mbesto 6y ago
There are two aspects of "money" - store of value and medium of exchange.
> Trying to simplify it into a narrower definition of currency is like trying to fit a tesseract shaped object through a sphere shaped hole.
Which is funny because that's exactly what you did. You only compared it to store of value ("asset class") and ignored the "medium of exchange" part...which is the characteristic people are using for the comparison to fiat currency.
You can accept that BTC has a store of value and still be critical that its use for a medium of exchange is limited.
- washedup 6y agoThe author is saying it's lack of ability to be medium of exchange is reason for it's failure and their decision to short it, I am saying that you need to consider all facets of the technology. It might fail as currency today, but that doesn't mean it won't in the future or that it has other useful properties today
- mbesto 6y ago> I am saying that you need to consider all facets of the technology. And to your point the author did assess it as a medium of exchange and deemed it a failure. > but that doesn't mean it won't in the future or that it has other useful properties today Just as you think it has a future, the author thinks it doesn't - hence the short position. But saying that the author didn't consider all aspects is disingenuous - they literally did, they just don't agree with you. Also, you talked about other uses like "protocol and secure network". Aren't these just features of the technology that powers BTC (e.g. blockchain)?