4 ms·

The entertainment value is insignificant compared to the cost of the piece. To me it looks like Bitcoin just put an uncomfortable fact in plain light: humans ar

The entertainment value is insignificant compared to the cost of the piece. To me it looks like Bitcoin just put an uncomfortable fact in plain light: humans are irrational and sometimes like to arbitrarily give value to some things and not to others, for a variable amount of time. That's why these discussions about intrinsic value usually go nowhere, but it's hard to bear because for it clashes with common fundamental economic assumptions/beliefs. I'm an engineer, so sure I would find a rational and efficient free market beautiful, but let's face it, it's wishful thinking and is not the reality.

hansel_der 5y ago
> The entertainment value is insignificant compared to the cost of the piece. that is your (and my) oppinion, it may well be different for someone with a lot of money.
- tarsinge 5y ago
  And who is right? This kind of illustrate my point: there is no universal natural intrinsic value, it can differ a lot from a person to another. Bitcoin or Van Gogh pieces have value for those who chose to see value in them, no matter the rationality of the decision.
  - hansel_der 5y ago
    exactly! they are both right
- RealityVoid 5y ago
  I think you can just as well be entertained by a VanGogh printed poster and have about 10 million to spare.
- medvezhenok 5y ago
  If it were solely due to the entertainment value then an exact replica (made by someone else) would have the same value as the original. But it doesn't. Art (and most collectibles) are a type of social signaling (kind of like peacock feathers). In the end they are done for the same reason that someone buys a Ferrari or McLauren: to show to other people that they have achieved material success and to attract a better mate (in the end almost everything comes down to genetic incentives, whether conscious or not). As long as there is a contingent of people who believe that art is a social signifier and it will help people in the mating game, it will continue to be valuable (also tax evasion - but that's a different story).

hansel_der 5y ago

> The entertainment value is insignificant compared to the cost of the piece. that is your (and my) oppinion, it may well be different for someone with a lot of money.

tarsinge 5y ago
And who is right? This kind of illustrate my point: there is no universal natural intrinsic value, it can differ a lot from a person to another. Bitcoin or Van Gogh pieces have value for those who chose to see value in them, no matter the rationality of the decision.
- hansel_der 5y ago
  exactly! they are both right
RealityVoid 5y ago
I think you can just as well be entertained by a VanGogh printed poster and have about 10 million to spare.
medvezhenok 5y ago
If it were solely due to the entertainment value then an exact replica (made by someone else) would have the same value as the original. But it doesn't. Art (and most collectibles) are a type of social signaling (kind of like peacock feathers). In the end they are done for the same reason that someone buys a Ferrari or McLauren: to show to other people that they have achieved material success and to attract a better mate (in the end almost everything comes down to genetic incentives, whether conscious or not). As long as there is a contingent of people who believe that art is a social signifier and it will help people in the mating game, it will continue to be valuable (also tax evasion - but that's a different story).