3 ms·
> That's the sunk cost fallacy talking. There is no sunk cost for a cost that hasn't been made yet (buying the domain). If you're referring to the "cost" of bu
by melvinmt 13y ago
> That's the sunk cost fallacy talking.
There is no sunk cost for a cost that hasn't been made yet (buying the domain). If you're referring to the "cost" of buying bitcoin then that isn't a sunk cost either (actually no cost at all since it's an expense for a semi-liquid asset that you still possess). So the parent is right to take opportunity costs into account, especially in case of deflationary currency.
- cjy 13y agoI believe patio11's point is that the opportunity cost of a domain name is the same regardless of which currency you use to buy it. If you use Bitcoins, you have less Bitcoins. If you use dollars, you have less dollars to convert into Bitcoins if you think they will appreciate. Your net position in Bitcoins need not be affected by your choice of currency for this particular transaction.
- seliopou 13y agoI think that's right. But then, if you don't want your bitcoin position to change, and you have no need for its other features in this transaction, then why use bitcoin? The OP's point stands.
- ars_technician 13y ago>So the parent is right to take opportunity costs into account, especially in case of deflationary currency. If that were a valid concern, why would anyone ever spend bitcoins when they could spend cash? If the price is guaranteed to rise as you imply, why isn't it already reflected in the market price? In other words, why are there people even selling it?
- cdcarter 13y agoIn this case, bitcoin IS cash.