3 ms·

> Government-issued currencies have value because they represent human trust and cooperation. There is no wealth and no trade without these two things, so you m

> Government-issued currencies have value because they represent human trust and cooperation. There is no wealth and no trade without these two things, so you might as well go all in and trust people. Hm.. If you bought BTC when this article came out you'd be up 250%

em3rgent0rdr 6y ago
And mathematically-issued currencies such as cryptocurrency have value because they represent mathematically-provable trust, which is more reliable than human trust.
- QuadrupleA 6y ago
  The mathematical trust just ensures the transactions will all add up and history won't be rewritten. You still need the human trust to deliver the sold goods, have your exchange give you USD for your BTC, etc.
oh_sigh 6y ago
Sure, but only if you could stomach to hold onto it for 3 years while being down between 20% and 80%.
QuadrupleA 6y ago
If you bought Beanie Babies in 1995 and sold in 1997 you'd be up 16000%
- thebean11 6y ago
  Maybe, not convinced that market was quite as liquid as BTC. Either way, is it really a useful, interesting, or novel comparison this late in the game?
  - QuadrupleA 6y ago
    Late in the game as in BTC is 12 years old, or late in the game like it's worth $50k so obviously it's actually valuable / not a bubble etc.?
    - thebean11 6y ago
      12 years old, owned by institutions, traded on stock exchanges etc. The price and market cap too. The beanie baby comparison is pretty low effort and doesn't reflect reality at this point
      - QuadrupleA 6y ago
        Obviously different scale, but they seem similar in my view - bubbles based on assets of little practical utility (who buys groceries with BTC with $12 transaction fees and your wallet doubling or halving every week?), fueled by unpredictable crowd mania.
        thebean11 6y ago
        You see why that's a useless unfalsifiable narrative? Pick anything successful, call it a bubble, compare to beanie babies. It's not a good argument. One of your claims is falsifiable: Bitcoin has utility for large cross border payments.
      - nmfisher 6y ago
        If you bought Enron in 1997 and sold in 1999, you would be up ~100%. If you sold in 2000, you'd be up ~200%. If you bought earlier, those figures would be even higher. Far more accurate comparison.
maximente 6y ago
what does that statement mean, though? for example, if you bought GameStop you would have 6x'd. are we to assume that GME is twice the "investment" that BTC is? twice as impressive? twice as meaningful to the world? no, of course not. all of this is fueled on speculation, and picking arbitrary date ranges and prices on speculation as a basis for comparison outside of relative speculative performance is not super useful - as recent events have shown, things can move quickly based on purely market- and popularity based events.
gregopet 6y ago
That's what it always comes to, doesn't it? It can't be that bad if it turns a profit. The same argument used by pirates, slave traders, tobacco CEOs and money printing central bankers.
- thebean11 6y ago
  Right, Bitcoin is like slave trading, great point

em3rgent0rdr 6y ago

And mathematically-issued currencies such as cryptocurrency have value because they represent mathematically-provable trust, which is more reliable than human trust.

QuadrupleA 6y ago
The mathematical trust just ensures the transactions will all add up and history won't be rewritten. You still need the human trust to deliver the sold goods, have your exchange give you USD for your BTC, etc.

oh_sigh 6y ago

Sure, but only if you could stomach to hold onto it for 3 years while being down between 20% and 80%.

QuadrupleA 6y ago

If you bought Beanie Babies in 1995 and sold in 1997 you'd be up 16000%

thebean11 6y ago
Maybe, not convinced that market was quite as liquid as BTC. Either way, is it really a useful, interesting, or novel comparison this late in the game?
- QuadrupleA 6y ago
  Late in the game as in BTC is 12 years old, or late in the game like it's worth $50k so obviously it's actually valuable / not a bubble etc.?
  - thebean11 6y ago
    12 years old, owned by institutions, traded on stock exchanges etc. The price and market cap too. The beanie baby comparison is pretty low effort and doesn't reflect reality at this point
    - QuadrupleA 6y ago
      Obviously different scale, but they seem similar in my view - bubbles based on assets of little practical utility (who buys groceries with BTC with $12 transaction fees and your wallet doubling or halving every week?), fueled by unpredictable crowd mania.
      - thebean11 6y ago
        You see why that's a useless unfalsifiable narrative? Pick anything successful, call it a bubble, compare to beanie babies. It's not a good argument. One of your claims is falsifiable: Bitcoin has utility for large cross border payments.
    - nmfisher 6y ago
      If you bought Enron in 1997 and sold in 1999, you would be up ~100%. If you sold in 2000, you'd be up ~200%. If you bought earlier, those figures would be even higher. Far more accurate comparison.

maximente 6y ago

what does that statement mean, though? for example, if you bought GameStop you would have 6x'd. are we to assume that GME is twice the "investment" that BTC is? twice as impressive? twice as meaningful to the world? no, of course not. all of this is fueled on speculation, and picking arbitrary date ranges and prices on speculation as a basis for comparison outside of relative speculative performance is not super useful - as recent events have shown, things can move quickly based on purely market- and popularity based events.

gregopet 6y ago

That's what it always comes to, doesn't it? It can't be that bad if it turns a profit. The same argument used by pirates, slave traders, tobacco CEOs and money printing central bankers.

thebean11 6y ago
Right, Bitcoin is like slave trading, great point