3 ms·

Bitcoin, and other blockchain like devices, are simply a means of locking human consensus into a virtual object that can be manipulated under certain conditions

Bitcoin, and other blockchain like devices, are simply a means of locking human consensus into a virtual object that can be manipulated under certain conditions, which are agreed upon by the same consensus. It is a type of stored human causality, similar to fiat. Bitcoin is a special type of Ponzi scheme that uses energy input from miners to create the illusion there is a return in value over time. Like Rai stones, immutability comes from the work and risk, but the value of the object is itself held in the population's mind. This only "works" if everyone agrees it works. If everyone agrees it doesn't work then it doesn't work and isn't worth anything and the risk taken to "make" it is lost. This is why an allegory can be told that indicates it is the faith in such an object that brings it value. Without enough people using said blockchain, it is both worthless and empty of meaning - no different than a scrape in the mud. A killer use case for crypto will make its utility valuable and inventible. A road is formed from wear of people agreeing the road goes somewhere. The danger is the requirement for increases in power to the network, which both drives and is affected by the current value to fiat. We may yet wrap our planet with solar to drive our economic desire of "wealth".

rantwasp 5y ago
> Like Rai stones, immutability comes from the work and risk, but the value of the object is itself held in the population's mind. This only "works" if everyone agrees it works. If everyone agrees it doesn't work then it doesn't work and isn't worth anything and the risk taken to "make" it is lost. Deep. Very deep. The exact same thing can be said about money. It only works only if people agree it works. When you exchange your work for money, you are taking a risk. When you keep your money in the bank you are taking a risk. What if all of a sudden everyone stops accepting money? I really wish we would stop with the Ponzi scheme non-sense. Nobody believes that there is some sort of economic activity that is sustaining the growth. It’s really no different that buying stocks on an exchange. Risky? yes. Speculative? yes. Ponzi? Nope. This Bitcoin - Ponzi scheme association is used to fear-monger and to stop people from ever learning about it (you don’t want to be the sucker that falls for the scheme, do you?)
- throwaway34241 5y ago
  > It’s really no different that buying stocks on an exchange. I think it’s a little bit different depending on the style of investing. For Buffett-style value investing he’s making a bet on the profitability of the company itself and not the future price of the stock (obviously meme stocks work differently). Bitcoins don’t generate profits (by themselves) so their utility depends more on the future market price (which of course isn’t driven by profits either). The traditional investment it seems most similar to is gold, which has value because the supply is limited, it’s relatively easy to store/transport compared to bulkier materials, and there’s lots of liquidity due to others using it for the same purpose. Bitcoin seems to have the same sort of advantages (minus the industrial / jewelry applications, but it’s even easier to store and transact).
  - rantwasp 5y ago
    sure. there are nuances. stocks, options, futures, gold, etc all have different trade-offs and risks associated with them. my point was that a case can be made that it’s an investment and the ponzi people need to take a deep breath.
- lottin 5y ago
  > It’s really no different that buying stocks on an exchange. Actually, the difference is quite substantial. Stocks are fractional ownership of businesses and businesses create value by transforming inputs into an output that is worth more than the inputs combined. In comparison, bitcoin is a virtual commodity, and commodities (virtual or otherwise) don't produce anything, this is why they're sometimes called non-productive assets. This means bitcoin cannot create wealth. If somebody get rich by investing in bitcoin it must be always at the expense of other bitcoin investors.
  - rantwasp 5y ago
    there is a loophole here that I think is worth mentioning. What does getting rich mean? If you compare bitcoin to the USD, its value “increases”. But if you compare bitcoin with bitcoin you have the same amount of bitcoin today you had yesterday. So what really happens is you can buy more goods with the same amount of btc, in time, because of its scarcity. So bitcoin can create wealth in the sense that the quantity of goods you exchange for it increases over time (if people buy into using it that is).

rantwasp 5y ago

> Like Rai stones, immutability comes from the work and risk, but the value of the object is itself held in the population's mind. This only "works" if everyone agrees it works. If everyone agrees it doesn't work then it doesn't work and isn't worth anything and the risk taken to "make" it is lost. Deep. Very deep. The exact same thing can be said about money. It only works only if people agree it works. When you exchange your work for money, you are taking a risk. When you keep your money in the bank you are taking a risk. What if all of a sudden everyone stops accepting money? I really wish we would stop with the Ponzi scheme non-sense. Nobody believes that there is some sort of economic activity that is sustaining the growth. It’s really no different that buying stocks on an exchange. Risky? yes. Speculative? yes. Ponzi? Nope. This Bitcoin - Ponzi scheme association is used to fear-monger and to stop people from ever learning about it (you don’t want to be the sucker that falls for the scheme, do you?)

throwaway34241 5y ago
> It’s really no different that buying stocks on an exchange. I think it’s a little bit different depending on the style of investing. For Buffett-style value investing he’s making a bet on the profitability of the company itself and not the future price of the stock (obviously meme stocks work differently). Bitcoins don’t generate profits (by themselves) so their utility depends more on the future market price (which of course isn’t driven by profits either). The traditional investment it seems most similar to is gold, which has value because the supply is limited, it’s relatively easy to store/transport compared to bulkier materials, and there’s lots of liquidity due to others using it for the same purpose. Bitcoin seems to have the same sort of advantages (minus the industrial / jewelry applications, but it’s even easier to store and transact).
- rantwasp 5y ago
  sure. there are nuances. stocks, options, futures, gold, etc all have different trade-offs and risks associated with them. my point was that a case can be made that it’s an investment and the ponzi people need to take a deep breath.
lottin 5y ago
> It’s really no different that buying stocks on an exchange. Actually, the difference is quite substantial. Stocks are fractional ownership of businesses and businesses create value by transforming inputs into an output that is worth more than the inputs combined. In comparison, bitcoin is a virtual commodity, and commodities (virtual or otherwise) don't produce anything, this is why they're sometimes called non-productive assets. This means bitcoin cannot create wealth. If somebody get rich by investing in bitcoin it must be always at the expense of other bitcoin investors.
- rantwasp 5y ago
  there is a loophole here that I think is worth mentioning. What does getting rich mean? If you compare bitcoin to the USD, its value “increases”. But if you compare bitcoin with bitcoin you have the same amount of bitcoin today you had yesterday. So what really happens is you can buy more goods with the same amount of btc, in time, because of its scarcity. So bitcoin can create wealth in the sense that the quantity of goods you exchange for it increases over time (if people buy into using it that is).