4 ms·

Call me confused, but my understanding is that pretty much everyone is currently using it as digital gold, a store of value, a powerful hedge against inflation.

by lowkey 5y ago

Call me confused, but my understanding is that pretty much everyone is currently using it as digital gold, a store of value, a powerful hedge against inflation. Why is store-of-value not a valid use case, especially with central banks printing money so aggressively? Who cares if it is used as currency? It is used by millions and that's what matters. As long as governments insist on taxing Bitcoin as property, it will never be a medium of exchange. As long as it continues to grow at 10-20x the S&P500, it will not be used as a unit of account. So what? It is a $1 Trillion asset class that has proven itself as a store of value over the past 12 years. It offers unique technology, game theory and network effects relative to all alternatives and it is protected by a forcefield of hashpower called Proof-of-work that is impenetrable to even nation-state level attacks. Bitcoin is amazing. I believe it is the most remarkable innovation of the 21st century. Prove me wrong. Tell me about a superior innovation invented this century.

rglullis 5y ago
> everyone is currently using it as digital gold, a store of value, a powerful hedge against inflation. You and I have a different idea of "everyone" means, but anyway... > Why is store-of-value not a valid use case Because if it's value depends on a large number of people agreeing to its value, then it's not a store of value. All it takes is for the miners to decide to dedicate their resources to something more profitable, and suddenly the network is worth zero. > It offers unique technology. It's so unique, it has spun how many forks already? > It is a $1 Trillion asset class that has proven itself as a store of value over the past 12 years. You are literally using circular logic here. > Tell me about a superior innovation invented this century. "Blockchain, not Bitcoin". ;) And even blockchain still needs to prove itself. I believe it can be very useful for some cases, and I am working to see it succeed. I just don't think that "digital gold" is one of those cases. BTC was a good prototype. That's it. We should continue in the drawing board instead of pretending that we have a finished product in our hands. BTC already failed as a currency, the activists and cypherpunks that first got into it would be mortified to see how now current proponents end up cheering for a dictator in a Banana Republic that is pushing "their" coin. The "digital gold" narrative switch was an attempt to save it and now we are all playing this game of "Emperor has no clothes" with something because some people are trying to be rich without building any wealth.
- lowkey 5y ago
  > You and I have a different idea of "everyone" means, but anyway... I misspoke, everyone who is investing in Bitcoin, ~100 million individuala, is doing so because of it's store of value and inflation-hedge properties > Because if it's value depends on a large number of people agreeing to its value, then it's not a store of value. All it takes is for the miners to decide to dedicate their resources to something more profitable, and suddenly the network is worth zero. Can you tell me a single asset or commodity (including USD) whose value does not depend on a number of people agreeing to it? Yes the US gov determines that fiat has value by accepting it for taxes, but how much value it has to purchase real goods is determined by the market. > It's so unique, it has spun how many forks already? Often imitated, never replicated. No one has ever come close to replicating the hashpower that makes Bitcoin secure. > You are literally using circular logic here. It is a $1 Trillion asset that started out as a worthless technology experiment almost 13 years ago > "Blockchain, not Bitcoin". ;) No, just no. Blockchain without Bitcoin, meaning the game theory that led to the rise of the network and the supercomputer network that protects it, is just a nice academic theory. Other Blockchains do not enjoy the hashpower or the security budget of Bitcoin and are therefore not competitive. (Name one other Blockchain that is more secure than Bitcoin) > BTC was a good prototype. That's it. A prototype that is now worth $1 Trillion in market cap, moving more value than Visa every day. How can we call that a prototype? Are there any competitive blockchains that are aiming to replace this Bitcoin 'prototype' and providing a decentralized digital currency with a fixed a pre-determined monetary policy, protected by the most secure super-computer ever created? > BTC already failed as a currency, the activists and cypherpunks that first got into it would be mortified to see how now current proponents end up cheering for a dictator in a Banana Republic that is pushing "their" coin. I'm sorry Bitcoin didn't conform to your 'allowed' definition of a 'currency'. Bitcoin is no more a currency than the automobile was a mechanical horse. Bitcoin is a radically different way of solving the same problem traditionally solved with money. There is overlap, but it isn't going to be 100%. I think you are overly focused on the medium of exchange and unit of account use case. These unfortunately are dead on arrival for any country that taxes Bitcoin as property rather than treating it like a currency. In El Salvador, Bitcoin can be a currency, not in the US or Europe. > The "digital gold" narrative switch was an attempt to save it and now we are all playing this game of "Emperor has no clothes" with something because some people are trying to be rich without building any wealth. I appreciate your perspective. Have fun staying poor.

by lowkey 5y ago

rglullis 5y ago

> everyone is currently using it as digital gold, a store of value, a powerful hedge against inflation. You and I have a different idea of "everyone" means, but anyway... > Why is store-of-value not a valid use case Because if it's value depends on a large number of people agreeing to its value, then it's not a store of value. All it takes is for the miners to decide to dedicate their resources to something more profitable, and suddenly the network is worth zero. > It offers unique technology. It's so unique, it has spun how many forks already? > It is a $1 Trillion asset class that has proven itself as a store of value over the past 12 years. You are literally using circular logic here. > Tell me about a superior innovation invented this century. "Blockchain, not Bitcoin". ;) And even blockchain still needs to prove itself. I believe it can be very useful for some cases, and I am working to see it succeed. I just don't think that "digital gold" is one of those cases. BTC was a good prototype. That's it. We should continue in the drawing board instead of pretending that we have a finished product in our hands. BTC already failed as a currency, the activists and cypherpunks that first got into it would be mortified to see how now current proponents end up cheering for a dictator in a Banana Republic that is pushing "their" coin. The "digital gold" narrative switch was an attempt to save it and now we are all playing this game of "Emperor has no clothes" with something because some people are trying to be rich without building any wealth.

lowkey 5y ago
> You and I have a different idea of "everyone" means, but anyway... I misspoke, everyone who is investing in Bitcoin, ~100 million individuala, is doing so because of it's store of value and inflation-hedge properties > Because if it's value depends on a large number of people agreeing to its value, then it's not a store of value. All it takes is for the miners to decide to dedicate their resources to something more profitable, and suddenly the network is worth zero. Can you tell me a single asset or commodity (including USD) whose value does not depend on a number of people agreeing to it? Yes the US gov determines that fiat has value by accepting it for taxes, but how much value it has to purchase real goods is determined by the market. > It's so unique, it has spun how many forks already? Often imitated, never replicated. No one has ever come close to replicating the hashpower that makes Bitcoin secure. > You are literally using circular logic here. It is a $1 Trillion asset that started out as a worthless technology experiment almost 13 years ago > "Blockchain, not Bitcoin". ;) No, just no. Blockchain without Bitcoin, meaning the game theory that led to the rise of the network and the supercomputer network that protects it, is just a nice academic theory. Other Blockchains do not enjoy the hashpower or the security budget of Bitcoin and are therefore not competitive. (Name one other Blockchain that is more secure than Bitcoin) > BTC was a good prototype. That's it. A prototype that is now worth $1 Trillion in market cap, moving more value than Visa every day. How can we call that a prototype? Are there any competitive blockchains that are aiming to replace this Bitcoin 'prototype' and providing a decentralized digital currency with a fixed a pre-determined monetary policy, protected by the most secure super-computer ever created? > BTC already failed as a currency, the activists and cypherpunks that first got into it would be mortified to see how now current proponents end up cheering for a dictator in a Banana Republic that is pushing "their" coin. I'm sorry Bitcoin didn't conform to your 'allowed' definition of a 'currency'. Bitcoin is no more a currency than the automobile was a mechanical horse. Bitcoin is a radically different way of solving the same problem traditionally solved with money. There is overlap, but it isn't going to be 100%. I think you are overly focused on the medium of exchange and unit of account use case. These unfortunately are dead on arrival for any country that taxes Bitcoin as property rather than treating it like a currency. In El Salvador, Bitcoin can be a currency, not in the US or Europe. > The "digital gold" narrative switch was an attempt to save it and now we are all playing this game of "Emperor has no clothes" with something because some people are trying to be rich without building any wealth. I appreciate your perspective. Have fun staying poor.