2 ms·

You know, if you want to just ignore the premise, you could also point out that genies aren't real, magic doesn't work, and heck, even for the physical objects

You know, if you want to just ignore the premise, you could also point out that genies aren't real, magic doesn't work, and heck, even for the physical objects there's no way I could be prevented from reselling my brand new shotgun or car or pile of drugs! But in doing so, you might miss the point of a thought experiment like this. There is a difference between things that are desirable in and of themselves, and things that are desirable because of their trade value. The term "intrinsic value" is used to make that distinction. It doesn't mean things without intrinsic value are bad, or broken, or doomed to fail. It's not a strictly negative or positive distinction. But it is a useful distinction to be able to make. If you redefine "intrinsic value" to include "trade value", you have just made the word "intrinsic" meaningless. Is there any type of asset that does not have intrinsic value, using this new definition? Now, getting out of the realm of hypothetical genies and magic, you can make an argument that government regulation cannot realistically prevent trade in Bitcoin, so that trade value will be maintained. No intrinsic value is required. I'm not so sure that the trade value would hold up without the buying pressure from retail investors and businesses wishing to comply with US law, but reasonable people can disagree.

randomhodler84 6y ago
I love the hypothetical, but I will admit I tried to redirect it :-) thank you for your response. I agree, one cannot consider “trade value” as a component of intrinsic — I think a better (partial) attribute of intrinsic to be its fungibility, which is more what I meant (ease of selling) instead of “trade value” as (sale price). Ease of selling can impact the sale price, which makes it an attribute of its trade value, not intrinsic, but I am making an argument that the very nature of the asset’s fungibility makes it a component of its intrinsic value. BTC is not perfectly fungible due to tx taint, but it is fungible enough over traditional stores of value that it makes it slightly better than traditional. This itself is independent of its sale price; “BTC had an intrinsic value the day it was born”, by merit of its coin provenance, audibility, integrity, censorship resistance and fungibility. That is worth something, even if nobody on earth wants to trade it for fiat.

randomhodler84 6y ago

I love the hypothetical, but I will admit I tried to redirect it :-) thank you for your response. I agree, one cannot consider “trade value” as a component of intrinsic — I think a better (partial) attribute of intrinsic to be its fungibility, which is more what I meant (ease of selling) instead of “trade value” as (sale price). Ease of selling can impact the sale price, which makes it an attribute of its trade value, not intrinsic, but I am making an argument that the very nature of the asset’s fungibility makes it a component of its intrinsic value. BTC is not perfectly fungible due to tx taint, but it is fungible enough over traditional stores of value that it makes it slightly better than traditional. This itself is independent of its sale price; “BTC had an intrinsic value the day it was born”, by merit of its coin provenance, audibility, integrity, censorship resistance and fungibility. That is worth something, even if nobody on earth wants to trade it for fiat.