5 ms·

> But the issue is that Bitcoin isn’t supposed to provide subjective value, it’s supposed to provide objective value; it’s literally supposed to be money. Mone

by ric2b 6y ago

> But the issue is that Bitcoin isn’t supposed to provide subjective value, it’s supposed to provide objective value; it’s literally supposed to be money. Money's value is also subjective, I'm not sure what you think is objective about it. Sounds like you're just trying to dodge the comparison.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Definitionally, money’s value is not supposed to be subjective.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Definitionally, money’s value is not supposed to be subjective. Not only is that not true, but if to was it would just render “money” a non-concept, because definitionally value (in general, not just of money) is subjective.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Ah, the “everything is subjective” rabbit hole. No thanks, that’s never a useful conversation. The purpose of any monetary system is to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. That’s why humans make money; to avoid the need to barter or depend on social credit systems that don’t scale well. This provides us some objective goals with which we can compare and contrast monetary systems against; while what one does with money is subjective, we can objectively compare the efficiency and ease with which a monetary system can facilitate transactions. In this area Bitcoin does terribly. This is probably why Bitcoin advocates have mostly moved onto “it’s a store of value”, that’s more a more defensible proposition.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Ah, the “everything is subjective” rabbit hole “Everything is subjective” is a (reasonable) epistemological argument about all access to data about the world being through subjective lenses, and thus all conclusions about the world being grounded in subjectivity. But that's not the sense in which value specifically is subjective. Value specifically is subjective because value is dependent on the subjective utility functions of people who have (or who might seek to acquire) the good and it's competing/alternative goods. > This provides us some objective goals That's about the value of a monetary system not the value of money, but both the specific goals, and more particularly how they are weighted against each other, remain subjective and the source of considerable disagreement.
    - ric2b 6y ago
      > we can objectively compare the efficiency and ease with which a monetary system can facilitate transactions. Ok. How much does ease of use matter for the value of a currency? 50%? 20%? 80%? What about all it's other characteristics? You can certainly be objective when comparing each characteristic in isolation but the value of the currency depends on how all of them are weighted against each other, and that is completely subjective. Just like the value of anything else. Even the same person might change the weights they use to value something depending on what's going on in their life.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        Ah, I see where this went wrong. I really should have been using the word "utility", not "value". This would've gone much smoother if I'd used that word throughout instead of "value". The original poster's argument was that we all "waste" power watching pornography and going on skiing trips, so how dare we judge Bitcoin. My counter argument is that they're mixing up energy usage between subjective and objective utility in an attempt to shift Bitcoin into a harder to compare category. Subjectively, how can we judge the relative utility of a kWh spent on entertainment? The utility of each of the activities listed (minus Bitcoin) are all literally in the eye of the beholder; we can't possibly hope to compare the utility of a kWh spent on pornography vs. skiing. Obviously we can compare energy usage per minute of each, but comparing the utility of a kWh spent running a ski lift vs. PornHub's servers really just breaks down to which form of entertainment you value more. My issue is that Bitcoin is supposed to do something objective; it's supposed to be money. This means that we absolutely can (and should!) sit down and compare it against its alternatives on numeric values, such as kWh consumption. The moment one starts actually comparing Bitcoin against its direct competitors in measurable categories it starts looking really bad, which is probably why its proponents try to prevent that. > You can certainly be objective when comparing each characteristic in isolation but the value of the currency depends on how all of them are weighted against each other, and that is completely subjective. Back to value now. Ideally currencies aren't supposed to have value per se, rather other things are supposed to have value in terms of it. Obviously this runs into the reality of multiple currencies and exchange rates, but at the local level it actually works this way. You and I might disagree about the relative value of a product, but we express our own disagreement in terms of dollars. We don't disagree about the relative value of the dollar itself. This is why inflation is usually measured in the shift of common goods and services in terms of dollars, since measuring the value of the dollar itself is a fool's errand. As far as the value of Bitcoin in terms of USD, that's a subject that has been pretty thoroughly dug into. I doubt that I'll add anything new and interesting here.
- ric2b 6y ago
  What do you mean by "objective value"? My belief is that such a thing doesn't exist.

by ric2b 6y ago

ashtonkem 6y ago

Definitionally, money’s value is not supposed to be subjective.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Definitionally, money’s value is not supposed to be subjective. Not only is that not true, but if to was it would just render “money” a non-concept, because definitionally value (in general, not just of money) is subjective.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Ah, the “everything is subjective” rabbit hole. No thanks, that’s never a useful conversation. The purpose of any monetary system is to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. That’s why humans make money; to avoid the need to barter or depend on social credit systems that don’t scale well. This provides us some objective goals with which we can compare and contrast monetary systems against; while what one does with money is subjective, we can objectively compare the efficiency and ease with which a monetary system can facilitate transactions. In this area Bitcoin does terribly. This is probably why Bitcoin advocates have mostly moved onto “it’s a store of value”, that’s more a more defensible proposition.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Ah, the “everything is subjective” rabbit hole “Everything is subjective” is a (reasonable) epistemological argument about all access to data about the world being through subjective lenses, and thus all conclusions about the world being grounded in subjectivity. But that's not the sense in which value specifically is subjective. Value specifically is subjective because value is dependent on the subjective utility functions of people who have (or who might seek to acquire) the good and it's competing/alternative goods. > This provides us some objective goals That's about the value of a monetary system not the value of money, but both the specific goals, and more particularly how they are weighted against each other, remain subjective and the source of considerable disagreement.
  - ric2b 6y ago
    > we can objectively compare the efficiency and ease with which a monetary system can facilitate transactions. Ok. How much does ease of use matter for the value of a currency? 50%? 20%? 80%? What about all it's other characteristics? You can certainly be objective when comparing each characteristic in isolation but the value of the currency depends on how all of them are weighted against each other, and that is completely subjective. Just like the value of anything else. Even the same person might change the weights they use to value something depending on what's going on in their life.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      Ah, I see where this went wrong. I really should have been using the word "utility", not "value". This would've gone much smoother if I'd used that word throughout instead of "value". The original poster's argument was that we all "waste" power watching pornography and going on skiing trips, so how dare we judge Bitcoin. My counter argument is that they're mixing up energy usage between subjective and objective utility in an attempt to shift Bitcoin into a harder to compare category. Subjectively, how can we judge the relative utility of a kWh spent on entertainment? The utility of each of the activities listed (minus Bitcoin) are all literally in the eye of the beholder; we can't possibly hope to compare the utility of a kWh spent on pornography vs. skiing. Obviously we can compare energy usage per minute of each, but comparing the utility of a kWh spent running a ski lift vs. PornHub's servers really just breaks down to which form of entertainment you value more. My issue is that Bitcoin is supposed to do something objective; it's supposed to be money. This means that we absolutely can (and should!) sit down and compare it against its alternatives on numeric values, such as kWh consumption. The moment one starts actually comparing Bitcoin against its direct competitors in measurable categories it starts looking really bad, which is probably why its proponents try to prevent that. > You can certainly be objective when comparing each characteristic in isolation but the value of the currency depends on how all of them are weighted against each other, and that is completely subjective. Back to value now. Ideally currencies aren't supposed to have value per se, rather other things are supposed to have value in terms of it. Obviously this runs into the reality of multiple currencies and exchange rates, but at the local level it actually works this way. You and I might disagree about the relative value of a product, but we express our own disagreement in terms of dollars. We don't disagree about the relative value of the dollar itself. This is why inflation is usually measured in the shift of common goods and services in terms of dollars, since measuring the value of the dollar itself is a fool's errand. As far as the value of Bitcoin in terms of USD, that's a subject that has been pretty thoroughly dug into. I doubt that I'll add anything new and interesting here.
ric2b 6y ago
What do you mean by "objective value"? My belief is that such a thing doesn't exist.