3 ms·
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
by 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 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.