5 ms·

Bitcoin is not a collectible any more than individual gold bars are collectibles. A collectible can be compared in value to another collectible of the same typ

by trimbo 5y ago

Bitcoin is not a collectible any more than individual gold bars are collectibles. A collectible can be compared in value to another collectible of the same type. I might want a 1979 Dave Kingman card because I'm nostalgic for Dave "Kong" Kingman. Others will buy the Dave Kingman card to sell it to people like me, but we all give the card value based on its condition, the player, the year, etc. But a Steve Macko card and a Dave Kingman card are completely different in value. They are independently valued. Bitcoin is not.

Ansil849 5y ago
> Bitcoin is not a collectible any more than individual gold bars are collectibles. Some individual gold bars are collectibles.
bruce511 5y ago
You are equating different cards to different bitcoins. That's not the point of the article. In the context of the article there are a limited number of say babe Ruth cards. They are all the same. Bitcoin is the babe Ruth card. Other cards represent other coins. Arguing if bitcoin is money is like arguing if a ferrari testarosa is a car. It clearly is,but at the same time it's not a terribly useful car. Sure bitcoin is money, but it's not an especially useful form of money. Its main attribute is scarcity,not utility. A regular car will drive around 200 000 miles in its lifetime, the ferrari maybe 50 000, probably less. Bitcoin may be money, but its a pretty weak form of money in terms of what we need everyday.
- Nevermark 5y ago
  Ah thanks for clearing that up for me. But comparing all the Babe Ruth cards to Bitcoin makes even less sense. 2,100 trillion satoshis is qualitatively different than something with only tens, hundreds or thousands of units. Not to mention that every Babe Ruth card is still judged individually on its relative value to other Babe Ruth cards. Differentiated by its condition for instance. I just don't see that comparison making any sense.
kenjackson 5y ago
I think the point the author makes is that all Bitcoin is the Mantle cards. Ethereum is the Mays cards. Gold has inherent value. You can melt them and use the gold. A better example might be diamonds. They have value, but very little is intrinsic in the actual gem. They are collectibles.

by trimbo 5y ago

Ansil849 5y ago

> Bitcoin is not a collectible any more than individual gold bars are collectibles. Some individual gold bars are collectibles.

bruce511 5y ago

You are equating different cards to different bitcoins. That's not the point of the article. In the context of the article there are a limited number of say babe Ruth cards. They are all the same. Bitcoin is the babe Ruth card. Other cards represent other coins. Arguing if bitcoin is money is like arguing if a ferrari testarosa is a car. It clearly is,but at the same time it's not a terribly useful car. Sure bitcoin is money, but it's not an especially useful form of money. Its main attribute is scarcity,not utility. A regular car will drive around 200 000 miles in its lifetime, the ferrari maybe 50 000, probably less. Bitcoin may be money, but its a pretty weak form of money in terms of what we need everyday.

Nevermark 5y ago
Ah thanks for clearing that up for me. But comparing all the Babe Ruth cards to Bitcoin makes even less sense. 2,100 trillion satoshis is qualitatively different than something with only tens, hundreds or thousands of units. Not to mention that every Babe Ruth card is still judged individually on its relative value to other Babe Ruth cards. Differentiated by its condition for instance. I just don't see that comparison making any sense.

kenjackson 5y ago

I think the point the author makes is that all Bitcoin is the Mantle cards. Ethereum is the Mays cards. Gold has inherent value. You can melt them and use the gold. A better example might be diamonds. They have value, but very little is intrinsic in the actual gem. They are collectibles.