4 ms·
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 r
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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.