4 ms·
> 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 uti
by 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.
- dmitriid 4y ago> 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. That's not how any of this works.
- chii 4y ago> That's not how any of this works. so you have just asserted but not given any reason.