4 ms·

We need to define such terms as "digital goods" and "useful". And then discuss whether bitcoin is either.

chii 4y ago
i think it's clear that digital goods are things that don't have any physical manifestation. "Useful" means someone would pay money for it - aka, utility. The more money paid, the more utility that goods have. Bitcoin is a digital good that has some utility (as people pay money for it). Some people assign some sort of morality/ethical aspect to bitcoin, claiming that it isn't useful. The gist of my argument is that those claims are wrong, because utility can only be demonstrated by the person paying (aka, the act of paying for a goods is what demonstrates that goods' utility).
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > i think it's clear that digital goods are things that don't have any physical manifestation That's debatable > The more money paid, the more utility that goods have. This is just false > The gist of my argument is that those claims are wrong, because utility can only be demonstrated by the person paying This is quite a stretch, as any Ponzi scheme will demonstrate.
  - chii 4y ago
    > This is quite a stretch, as any Ponzi scheme will demonstrate. well, i am under the impression that people aren't being lied to about their purchase. Bringing in fraud in a discussion about economic value and utility isn't really helpful. What makes something have utility? Why isn't the money paid representative of the utility (outside of fraud and crimes etc)?
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      > i am under the impression that people aren't being lied to about their purchase what > Bringing in fraud in a discussion about economic value and utility isn't really helpful. But it is helpful. > What makes something have utility? Why isn't the money paid representative of the utility (outside of fraud and crimes etc)? Let's say you've been sold the Golden Gate Bridge. You paid a million dollars for it. Does it have any utility for you? There are purely speculative assets whose utility only lies in speculation (that is, how much you can con the next man to extract some profit from assets you bought from the previous con man). They have zero utility outside the speculation. There are assets that have no utility beyond short-lived novelty or bragging rights to the person who buys them such as "buy a sq. ft. of land in Scotland and get a meaningless title to go with it". And so on. The fact that you pay money for something says literally nothing about utility of that something.
      - chii 4y ago
        > You paid a million dollars for it. Does it have any utility for you? well, you have to ask why somebody might've paid a million for it. For example, if owning the asset means you can charge a toll, then yes, it has utility, and presumably, you've done the sums and found that the utility is equal to, or greater than a million dollars - therefore, you paid for it. > There are assets that have no utility beyond short-lived novelty or bragging rights perhaps those bragging rights are useful to those who are doing the bragging. Who are you to say that it isn't utility? Just because from your point of view it is useless, doesn't mean anything. > The fact that you pay money for something says literally nothing about utility of that something. and this is where i think we disagree - i am assuming a rational actor. I assume that anyone would only pay money if they feel their spent money gives the equivalent utility, or else they wouldn't have spent it! Which is why i said fraud is irrelevant in this argument - if you were sold what is meant to be diamonds, but only got glass, then yes, somebody lost utility. But it doesn't mean the original thesis - paying for diamonds - wasn't correct.
        dmitriid 4y ago
        > Who are you to say that it isn't utility? Just because from your point of view it is useless, doesn't mean anything. That's why I said, we need to define utility first. To you, all utility means is that someone paid money for it. Then I have a Tower of Pisa to sell to you. > and this is where i think we disagree - i am assuming a rational actor. I assume that anyone would only pay money if they feel their spent money gives the equivalent utility Yup, beacause as we all know all people engaged with Bitcoin are rational actors. Fraud is definitely not irrelevant in this argument, but highly relevant. For example, while members of a Ponzi scheme feel that their money are well spent, the real utility of that is?..
        chii 4y ago
        > the real utility of that is? if they are lied to, then yes, they've wasted their utility. But if they weren't lied to - aka, they know full well what they're buying - then, how they feel _is_ the utility. Why is this any different than, say, going on a cruise ship that expends the equivalent amount of energy? A transaction is not a waste just because some people (who weren't part of the transaction) believe it to be wasteful. Only those involved in the transaction can determine that metric. Regulation needs to be in place so that externalities are part of the transaction - which is why instead of stopping bitcoins, the energy usage (of anything, including bitcoin) should have a carbon tax.

chii 4y ago

i think it's clear that digital goods are things that don't have any physical manifestation. "Useful" means someone would pay money for it - aka, utility. The more money paid, the more utility that goods have. Bitcoin is a digital good that has some utility (as people pay money for it). Some people assign some sort of morality/ethical aspect to bitcoin, claiming that it isn't useful. The gist of my argument is that those claims are wrong, because utility can only be demonstrated by the person paying (aka, the act of paying for a goods is what demonstrates that goods' utility).

dmitriid 4y ago
> i think it's clear that digital goods are things that don't have any physical manifestation That's debatable > The more money paid, the more utility that goods have. This is just false > The gist of my argument is that those claims are wrong, because utility can only be demonstrated by the person paying This is quite a stretch, as any Ponzi scheme will demonstrate.
- chii 4y ago
  > This is quite a stretch, as any Ponzi scheme will demonstrate. well, i am under the impression that people aren't being lied to about their purchase. Bringing in fraud in a discussion about economic value and utility isn't really helpful. What makes something have utility? Why isn't the money paid representative of the utility (outside of fraud and crimes etc)?
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > i am under the impression that people aren't being lied to about their purchase what > Bringing in fraud in a discussion about economic value and utility isn't really helpful. But it is helpful. > What makes something have utility? Why isn't the money paid representative of the utility (outside of fraud and crimes etc)? Let's say you've been sold the Golden Gate Bridge. You paid a million dollars for it. Does it have any utility for you? There are purely speculative assets whose utility only lies in speculation (that is, how much you can con the next man to extract some profit from assets you bought from the previous con man). They have zero utility outside the speculation. There are assets that have no utility beyond short-lived novelty or bragging rights to the person who buys them such as "buy a sq. ft. of land in Scotland and get a meaningless title to go with it". And so on. The fact that you pay money for something says literally nothing about utility of that something.
    - chii 4y ago
      > You paid a million dollars for it. Does it have any utility for you? well, you have to ask why somebody might've paid a million for it. For example, if owning the asset means you can charge a toll, then yes, it has utility, and presumably, you've done the sums and found that the utility is equal to, or greater than a million dollars - therefore, you paid for it. > There are assets that have no utility beyond short-lived novelty or bragging rights perhaps those bragging rights are useful to those who are doing the bragging. Who are you to say that it isn't utility? Just because from your point of view it is useless, doesn't mean anything. > The fact that you pay money for something says literally nothing about utility of that something. and this is where i think we disagree - i am assuming a rational actor. I assume that anyone would only pay money if they feel their spent money gives the equivalent utility, or else they wouldn't have spent it! Which is why i said fraud is irrelevant in this argument - if you were sold what is meant to be diamonds, but only got glass, then yes, somebody lost utility. But it doesn't mean the original thesis - paying for diamonds - wasn't correct.
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        > Who are you to say that it isn't utility? Just because from your point of view it is useless, doesn't mean anything. That's why I said, we need to define utility first. To you, all utility means is that someone paid money for it. Then I have a Tower of Pisa to sell to you. > and this is where i think we disagree - i am assuming a rational actor. I assume that anyone would only pay money if they feel their spent money gives the equivalent utility Yup, beacause as we all know all people engaged with Bitcoin are rational actors. Fraud is definitely not irrelevant in this argument, but highly relevant. For example, while members of a Ponzi scheme feel that their money are well spent, the real utility of that is?..
        chii 4y ago
        > the real utility of that is? if they are lied to, then yes, they've wasted their utility. But if they weren't lied to - aka, they know full well what they're buying - then, how they feel _is_ the utility. Why is this any different than, say, going on a cruise ship that expends the equivalent amount of energy? A transaction is not a waste just because some people (who weren't part of the transaction) believe it to be wasteful. Only those involved in the transaction can determine that metric. Regulation needs to be in place so that externalities are part of the transaction - which is why instead of stopping bitcoins, the energy usage (of anything, including bitcoin) should have a carbon tax.