3 ms·

I was considering the blockchain itself as part of the infrastructure. If the [rest of the] infrastructure (i.e., the mining equipment) becomes (or is) useful,

I was considering the blockchain itself as part of the infrastructure. If the [rest of the] infrastructure (i.e., the mining equipment) becomes (or is) useful, it is only inasmuch as it is a good shepherd of the blockchain. It is both the mining equipment (at any point in time) and the blockchain which make possible the use of BTC as both a storage of value and a medium of exchange. As long as there exists both a globally-distributed secure ledger and a network capable of maintaining it, then the individual accounts within its purview obviously have whatever values it records them as having.

icambron 13y ago
> then the individual accounts within its purview obviously have whatever values it records them as having. I think there's a basic disconnect here about what we mean by "store of value". The simplest way to put it is that something stores value well if I can buy a predictable amount of stuff with it in the future. That the ledger does a good job of establishing that I have N bitcoins is different from telling me how much those bitcoins are actually worth.
- yohanatan 13y ago
  I'm using the standard definition of 'store of value' (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Store_of_value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Store_of_value). The only requirement to have a store of value (aside from ability to store and retrieve) is that there exist a floor; i.e., that an entity 'merely have economic value that is not known to disappear even in the worst situation' or in other words 'be predictably useful when retrieved'. Of course, we can easily imagine scenarios where Bitcoin loses all value but I think a sufficient imagination can produce scenarios for the other stores of value listed on that page as well. So, this is obviously a bit subjective territory (i.e., different people can assign different probabilities to each of the circumstantial propositions) but there is a strong argument from consistency for the designation of Bitcoin as a 'store of value'. I personally think that mathematically-interesting (and rare) numbers do have an intrinsic value (even if only as a novelty or perhaps antique/collectible).
  - icambron 13y ago
    I take back what I said about the definitional problem. But I don't see where you've established that Bitcoin has such a floor, as I said above. I don't think we're getting anywhere, though, so I'm going to break off.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - yohanatan 13y ago
      I didn't establish that it has a floor. Did you read and comprehend the entire response I sent last? I think it's pretty clear but I'll repeat it again for you-- my point is that Bitcoin has as legitimate a floor as any of the other entities commonly considered 'stores of value' and thus, from consistency, Bitcoin should be considered a store of value as well. I understand that you do not think that those other entities have floors either (and I, having a sufficient imagination, tend to agree with that). However, in that case, the term 'store of value' is non-sensical since, given a sufficient imagination, no entities can ever satisfy the 'floor' requirement.

icambron 13y ago

> then the individual accounts within its purview obviously have whatever values it records them as having. I think there's a basic disconnect here about what we mean by "store of value". The simplest way to put it is that something stores value well if I can buy a predictable amount of stuff with it in the future. That the ledger does a good job of establishing that I have N bitcoins is different from telling me how much those bitcoins are actually worth.

yohanatan 13y ago
I'm using the standard definition of 'store of value' (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Store_of_value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Store_of_value). The only requirement to have a store of value (aside from ability to store and retrieve) is that there exist a floor; i.e., that an entity 'merely have economic value that is not known to disappear even in the worst situation' or in other words 'be predictably useful when retrieved'. Of course, we can easily imagine scenarios where Bitcoin loses all value but I think a sufficient imagination can produce scenarios for the other stores of value listed on that page as well. So, this is obviously a bit subjective territory (i.e., different people can assign different probabilities to each of the circumstantial propositions) but there is a strong argument from consistency for the designation of Bitcoin as a 'store of value'. I personally think that mathematically-interesting (and rare) numbers do have an intrinsic value (even if only as a novelty or perhaps antique/collectible).
- icambron 13y ago
  I take back what I said about the definitional problem. But I don't see where you've established that Bitcoin has such a floor, as I said above. I don't think we're getting anywhere, though, so I'm going to break off.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - yohanatan 13y ago
    I didn't establish that it has a floor. Did you read and comprehend the entire response I sent last? I think it's pretty clear but I'll repeat it again for you-- my point is that Bitcoin has as legitimate a floor as any of the other entities commonly considered 'stores of value' and thus, from consistency, Bitcoin should be considered a store of value as well. I understand that you do not think that those other entities have floors either (and I, having a sufficient imagination, tend to agree with that). However, in that case, the term 'store of value' is non-sensical since, given a sufficient imagination, no entities can ever satisfy the 'floor' requirement.