4 ms·

I think Buffett is attacking a straw man here. I don't think anybody is really arguing that BTC itself, as it exists as the balances of addresses on the blockc

by Aqueous 13y ago

I think Buffett is attacking a straw man here. I don't think anybody is really arguing that BTC itself, as it exists as the balances of addresses on the blockchain, has intrinsic value. Just like fiat currency it has none. The payment technology, and the applications it enables, do have intrinsic value, however. He admits as much in this interview. He seems to recognize the distinction between a payment network and the currency itself. That means as a first mover in this space, however, that BTC is likely to go up in value with adoption, and probably reach a peak and will either remain a widely used currency or be supplanted by a currency with more attractive monetary policy. That's what a lot of early adopters of BTC are speculating. If there was a way for a casual investor to invest in the cryptocurrency space without investing in specifically BTC, I absolutely would sell my BTC and buy into it But to date there aren't any publically traded BTC companies, AFAIK (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

thatthatis 13y ago
First mover advantage is only relevant when there is substantial switching cost or other barriers. If bitcoin is successful as a payment technology, it will be added parallel to cards, and thus part of a payments "suite." What will the extra cost be of adding dogecoin or litecoin? In the best case it's going to be like Amex vs Visa vs MasterCard. Except those networks have enormous real world costs creating barriers that crypto currency doesn't have. Bitcoin first mover advantage is bunk.
- Aqueous 13y ago
  With BitCoin first mover advantage is expressed in how many vendors accept it over other currencies, and how much infrastructure there is in terms of exchanges, payment processors, and financial proudcts. Yes it is true that it would be trivial to exchange all my BTC for another cryptocurrency, but the reason I don't is because there is already so much infrastructure in the mainstream for BitCoin, and more every day. The cost of switching to another currency would be losing access to all this available, mainstream infrastructure and seriously limit my buying power. For another currency to supplant BitCoin it would have to fundamentally offer something that BitCoin does not, in a way that convinces mainstream operators like BitPay and CoinBase to start offering solutions for those currencies. So far 99% of the cryptocurrencies are just slight adjustments of the parameters of BTC. The only two technologies so far that may offer something that BitCoin does not are Ripple and Ethereum. It will probably take a few years, if not more, for those technologies to gain widespread adoption because people are just barely wrapping their heads around BitCoin - let alone smart contracts and autonomous corporations. A lot of is also brand strength. You see the exchanges and other mainstream enterprises latching onto the BitCoin brand because they do not want to dilute the brand and confuse their potential customers.
  - thatthatis 13y ago
    You talk about bitcoin as if it is established. Were it already mature your arguments would be valid, but it is still nascent. What % of the OECD has bought something with bitcoin? In the long view, Bitcoin only has brand strength. Time will tell, and I believe ultimately vindicate my arguments.

by Aqueous 13y ago

thatthatis 13y ago

First mover advantage is only relevant when there is substantial switching cost or other barriers. If bitcoin is successful as a payment technology, it will be added parallel to cards, and thus part of a payments "suite." What will the extra cost be of adding dogecoin or litecoin? In the best case it's going to be like Amex vs Visa vs MasterCard. Except those networks have enormous real world costs creating barriers that crypto currency doesn't have. Bitcoin first mover advantage is bunk.

Aqueous 13y ago
With BitCoin first mover advantage is expressed in how many vendors accept it over other currencies, and how much infrastructure there is in terms of exchanges, payment processors, and financial proudcts. Yes it is true that it would be trivial to exchange all my BTC for another cryptocurrency, but the reason I don't is because there is already so much infrastructure in the mainstream for BitCoin, and more every day. The cost of switching to another currency would be losing access to all this available, mainstream infrastructure and seriously limit my buying power. For another currency to supplant BitCoin it would have to fundamentally offer something that BitCoin does not, in a way that convinces mainstream operators like BitPay and CoinBase to start offering solutions for those currencies. So far 99% of the cryptocurrencies are just slight adjustments of the parameters of BTC. The only two technologies so far that may offer something that BitCoin does not are Ripple and Ethereum. It will probably take a few years, if not more, for those technologies to gain widespread adoption because people are just barely wrapping their heads around BitCoin - let alone smart contracts and autonomous corporations. A lot of is also brand strength. You see the exchanges and other mainstream enterprises latching onto the BitCoin brand because they do not want to dilute the brand and confuse their potential customers.
- thatthatis 13y ago
  You talk about bitcoin as if it is established. Were it already mature your arguments would be valid, but it is still nascent. What % of the OECD has bought something with bitcoin? In the long view, Bitcoin only has brand strength. Time will tell, and I believe ultimately vindicate my arguments.