4 ms·
Great comment. I love Nassim's writings. This is fascinating. So you're saying that bitcoin doesn't have any inherent value (like real currency) and that the v
by josh2600 14y ago
Great comment. I love Nassim's writings.
This is fascinating. So you're saying that bitcoin doesn't have any inherent value (like real currency) and that the value of bitcoin is essentially in security and openness? Is that a fair analysis.
Many of the points you make would apply to traditional currencies if the systems were less obfuscated, which is where I'm beginning to see a niche for bitcoin.
- gojomo 14y agoYes, I believe it was consciously designed to emphasize a few key dimensions that could make its balances uniquely useful as a circulating currency. So rather than being useful because of some physical and traditional qualities (like gold) or other practical consensus qualities (like state-backed fiat money), it bootstraps the necessary portability/divisibility/non-counterfeitability from cryptography and computer networking. On the other hand, Bitcoin has much less anonymity than is usually assumed (and often asserted, with hand-waving). So it's not a perfect mapping to traditional cash, or other idealized descriptions of cash/money. It's a new species of specie!