Yeah I'm getting the feeling that you *really* don't understand a word of what is being said to you.

'Money' is a representation of work done. Time and Energy.

An issued unit of Bitcoin is the result of Time and Energy, ergo, it is not 'nothing'.


If you are incapable of grasping this premise then you have no hope at all of understanding the topic of money. Stop confusing it for currency, that is merely its representative token.

Oh I see what the problem is. You're struggling to understand what a unit of work is in an economic sense and you're conflating money with currency.

Your trite 'payment in dust' analogy shows this misunderstanding. The 'dust' as a means of payment would be considered currency in that case because you are declaring it to be 'your money', but it fails as money because there is no scarcity and no value can be ascribed to it because no work is needed to be done to create it.

If I perform some work, say, building a house for you, my time and energy introduces additional value to the communal economy as that house will have value for many years to come. This would warrant the issuing of additional units of money to the community's collective money supply so that it is accounted for (if no new money is issued then the net effect of the value I have added to the economy is deflationary) If I want to pay my utility bills, buy a car, go on holiday, I need to offer the utility company, the car salesman, the travel company, sufficient proof of having done the equivalent value of work that equates to the price of the goods/services I am purchasing. So you need to give me a number of units of something which will maintain the same economic value as every single other unit of currency our communal economy uses (which denotes it as fungible money, one of the essential qualities of what makes something 'money')

Now, if you replace 'dust' with 'fiat currency' in your analogy, you could perhaps be a skilled forger and simply create units of currency in your back room and hand them to me, but in most fiat transactions the person paying has done some work for somebody else who, likewise, did work for others, and you all received various amounts of units of money which represented that. If no new value was added to the economy then the same monetary units all move around between people and there is no inflation or deflation.

Ideally, because I have created new value in the economy, our community central bank would print X number of new units of our money and that would be introduced into the economy, ensuring that additional value is accounted for and no deflation (and no inflation through excessive printing) occurs.

But, say central banks (and forgery) do introduce excessive amounts of new money into our communiity's economic system. Let's imagine they introduce a whole YEAR's worth of additional money into the system. Each unit of that money represents work that will have to be done to produce the equivalent value. Otherwise we're all going to see prices rise as there is more money in the system than there are things of value being created it equates to. Suddenly everything costs more but we still have exactly the same amount of value in the community's economy.

We have debased our money until we are able to balance the scales by producing more things of value into the system.

Each unit of money in an economic system represents a unit of time and energy spent (work), regardless of the token we adopt as its national currency (dollar, yen, pound, euro etc). It is how that money is created and the abuse of that process which results in the mess we see nations in these days.

This is what Bitcoin solves. It can only be produced through work which has been done, not work which is yet to be done.

Do you understand?

That's because it is, James. Like ALL money, each issued unit of Bitcoin represents actual work done.

Fiat currency (another form of money), however, can be issued in advance of the work actually being done, thereby resulting in there being an over-supply of units to the economy, causing inflation and saddling every participant and even future, yet-to-be-born, participant with the debt of needing to do the work it represents as a result.

Does that clarify things for you?

Money doesn't need to be backed by a tangible asset or commodity.  Bitcoin is a prime example of this concept, as it has established itself as a form of currency despite not being pegged to gold, debt, or any other physical equivalent.  Its value lies in its digital existence and the trust people have in it as a medium of exchange, even though there is nothing behind "1 BTC", just as there is nothing behind one monopoly note.


Go ahead and send me 1 million "empty digital boxes" if that's how you think.  I want you to transmit them to me using the Bitcoin protocol.  I'm curious to see how this plays out, so keep me updated on the process.


I want the Bitcoin protocol, not other protocols.  


I don't want you to send me any "empty digital box" that goes against the Bitcoin protocol.  


That's false.  If you do not meet satoshi's rules, then any transaction you make will be invalid by the nodes of the network.  

Bitcoin = converting electricity into store of value

Using poker chips as an analogy for Bitcoin was a bad idea, because poker chips are liabilities, not assets.  They derive their value from the casino's promise to redeem them for currency.  Bitcoin is an asset.  It is not backed by anything other than itself, just as every asset.  Its value comes from the trust and confidence that people have in it as a decentralized currency.  You're just incapable of acknowledging that Bitcoin possesses these qualities.  

You haven't answered my question:

I've illustrated the essence of a Bitcoin unit.  It signifies a numerical value within a distributed, resilient, and incorruptible database.  It doesn't denote the quantity of a tangible asset, much like electronic poker chips don't signify any physical object, yet they possess specific characteristics that make them valuable.


If I create an online game and grant you 10 "e-diamonds", there's no physical item I can present to depict these diamonds.  They exist solely within the confines of my game's rules.  Should you trust me, these e-diamonds can attain value and serve as a form of currency.  


If that were the case, then send 1 million bitcoins to this address: bc1q0u2tencdlkzeungrj7zsswl62nlxgucghhanwe.  Since they're merely abstract figures in a database, it shouldn't pose much difficulty for you to generate them out of nothing, correct?  

Correct.


If you asked me "unit of what" is Bitcoin, I would explain that it stands as a unit unto itself, not tied to anything.  For those lacking creativity, it might be thought as a number in a database.


Your ABC number would hold no value, and furthermore, it couldn't have any real worth due to its absence of essential monetary attributes.  It lacks durability and a stable monetary policy.  You could generate infinite ABC coins by merely altering your spreadsheet.  If your ABC number possessed durability and a verifiably fixed supply, it might begin to be regarded as a form of money.

What appears to me, is that you fail to understand that money doesn't necessarily require backing by a physical asset.  In ancient times, when tobacco served as currency, its value didn't stem from its tangible real-world worth per se.  It was accepted as money because it fulfilled the essential characteristics of currency.  Same for gold.  

It has to do with your denial to acknowledge that money units can detach from any backing by debt and essentially represent nothing, relying solely on the faith that the government will be responsible the monetary policy.    


Money doesn't require being backed by debt.  When you make a purchase from a vendor, you're not considering whether your banknotes represent any debt.  Money functions primarily as a medium of exchange, contingent upon mutual agreement on its value.  Monopoly money fails as money because it can be printed arbitrarily.  Bitcoin can function as money, even though not backed by an asset, because it is the asset.  It possesses the characteristics of money, like portability, durability, divisibility, and easy verifiability.  

It is very relevant, because you're under the delusion that every dollar bill represents a portion of debt, which is not true if the government issues money that isn't owed to anyone.  Your argument suggesting that the current monetary system isn't based on faith is simply incorrect.  It functions as long as there's trust that the government acts responsibly.  

In Bitcoin there is nothing that can be corrupted, that's why it has captured widespread interest.  It represents a wholly novel and innovative monetary system.  Your difficulty in grasping it comes from denying money existing without debt.  

Lol, it's hilarious that you accuse me of ad hominems, when you have done that to all other thread participants basically, even indirectly to Satoshi

BTW, I've refuted all of your "arguments" but you wasn't able to refute mine. If you want to challenge them, then please do so but try to be at least a bit coherent, and I'm sure I can answer them. If not, then do like you please, but then don't cry.

Sure, it's like this: Bitcoin shares similarities with traditional currencies.  While you might not personally own Bitcoin, there's a large network of individuals and businesses who do, and they've collectively established a standard for using it as a form of currency.  Bitcoin possesses qualities that make it attractive for people to use it as a currency.  What's your problem in this?  


If the central bank suddenly becomes corrupt and creates $1 trillion out of thin air, what debt backs up these newly printed dollars?


Houses in a country at war aren't worth as much as those in peaceful countries.  This supports my idea that value is subjective and can change anytime.  Nothing in life has a set value that everyone agrees on.  But you act like the US dollar will always represent the exact same value.  

I actually disagree here a bit. "Value of use" is indeed a category in different schools of economics. And I actually think there is such a thing, even if it is, as you wrote correctly, influenced by subjective valuation.

The error JamesNZ commits instead (probably deliberately, just to troll, as one can see in his despective tone, typical for trolls who want to impress by simple rhetoric tactics, not by arguments) is that he compares Bitcoin to a "good" in the sense of a "material good" or "physical good". It is instead a platform or service, like I explained to him above (and he chose to ignore that because he knows I'm right ), and thus its economics are similar to the one of the "postal service", not the "packages". Or even better, to a social networking service.

Thus, the "value of use" is the value the platform is delivering to the users, not the "value of use" of the empty boxes themselves. I actually think if Bitcoin wasn't "useful" it would be indeed potentially valueless. I actually do criticise many "tokens" because of a similar reason JamesNZ applies incorrectly to Bitcoin. Examples include BRC-20 and most Runes. They are not platforms because they don't have blockchains, they only "exist" on a blockchain. They have no "value of use" at all. They can have still a market value tied to some future expectations. For example, one could expect that the creator of a succesful token may launch a platform in the future and thus "have value of use like a platform". Or that it could be transformed into an "utility token", and "utility tokens" do normally have a "value of use" because they're tied to a concrete service of a company. But I think this is wishful thinking in 99% of all cases, and the remaining cases are almost all things like in-game currencies which have a very limited "value of use" and only in a specific group of often limited size. In-game currencies can have market caps of a few millions but not billions like some BRC-20's had in their heyday.

Another error one could commit is to think that the value is the one which can be extracted by the company of the postal service, because such a company doesn't exist in the case of BTC (it exists in the case of many altcoins though). It is instead a sum of a lot of different types of "values of use" which people can achieve with the Bitcoin platform. Platform economics is complex, and I think even JamesNZ should know its basic assumptions, but he's too lazy to adjust his house of cards a bit.

If "real value" is subjective, then it's real from some people's viewpoint.  Everyone needs food, but not everyone agrees on a specific dollar amount for a loaf of bread.  "Real value" essentially means something is necessary, but there's no universally agreed-upon price for any product.  

You've also deliberately overlooked my question about what occurs if the government becomes corrupt, printing money out of thin air, and granting them to themselves—a scenario that's entirely plausible given the corruption associated with those in power.  What do these dollars signify, when there's no debt recorded?  

You can keep going on and on about the same stuff.  Is this some sort of enjoyment for you?  Writing without any real substance just to feel like you've made a point?  

There's no such thing as "real value" in this world.  Each person perceives value differently, and the nearest thing we have to an "objective value" is market value, determined by concrete factors like demand and supply.  

Point proven.  All they can do is try to sell this spurious notion that people "need debt".  Evidently, they don't, because we've now spent over a decade running a successful economy without debt.

Every day that passes by is further proof that OP is wrong (as are their multitude of other accounts attempting to sell the same lie).  

Not dollars specifically, but rather their market value.  You contend that $1 holds the same value as a McDonald's burger.  However, I'm asserting that this equivalence holds only under the condition that the US government and central bank exercise responsible monetary policy.  If, for instance, they opt to print $10 trillion out of thin air, the value of the dollar diminishes. This principle is grounded in basic economics—supply and demand—and applies not only to assets and products but also to currency itself.  

I'm intrigued as to why you find this concept challenging to understand.  

OK, so you also can't explain the rarity of the collectibles I've mentioned. You're evading the question. If you continue this way this will be my last post on the subject, as that clearly shows your lack in understanding.

I have described well why Bitcoin satisfies people's needs, because at least in your "postal service" analogy it would be a postal service with characteristics which no other service can bring (USPs). I think you simply need to educate yourself on the concept of "platform services" and how they accrue "value". The best analogy is of course not a postal service, but a service in the information economy. A social networking service like Instagram, Facebook or X fits a bit better as an analogy: the bigger the ecosystem of people willing to enter it and use it, the bigger is the value.

The analogy is however not perfect, as in a centralized system like Facebook the operator can extract a big part of the value via advertising. But it's not the only party extracting value, for example companies/freelancers can also extract value due to its usage for marketing purposes, or to sell goods in the case of social networks with a marketplace. Something similar occurs with Bitcoin: exchanges can earn fees, merchants can sell products, people save fees using Bitcoin in comparison to Western Union or banks. So think "Facebook minus Meta". Also of course people hodling expecting future gains, but that wouldn't work if the other parts of the ecosystem weren't present. All these are reasons why people are willing to use it to store and transfer money. The "value of a Bitcoin" is, as I wrote, only the aggregate of the value which is put into the system, each Bitcoin transaction continues to be a private contract.

Continuing this discussion seems futile.  You're incorrect in dismissing the faith individuals and institutions have in the currency, as well as in the stability guaranteed by the government and the central bank.  Your belief that $1 always corresponds to an underlying asset is fundamentally flawed.  I cannot stress this point enough.  If you fail to grasp this concept, you're unlikely to appreciate the beauty of Bitcoin.  

No, I don't trade the box itself. I put value inside the box, and only once the box is filled, then it can be traded (the value inside the box is traded, not the envelope). Read again the part about "Stage 2" and private contracts.

That's what describes your comment best. I think you didn't even read my post.

OK, but then explain me something: Why is a stamp or coin where a failure in the printing machine made look one character slightly different, much more valuable than a stamp/coin with the correct character? (This is actually why I brought this example up, but your understanding seems to be too limited to grasp that ...)

The reason has actually to do with "rarity", not with the "senses" you "explore" the item with. The difference can explain 99% or more of the value. This is also the case for Bitcoin. If Bitcoin was not rare it would not have a value.

If you now do another Freudian rationalization and say that "collectibles are also stupid", or "this kind of collectible is stupid" then ok. Then we simply have an opposite view about what "stupidity" is If you try to explain the price of the failed coin/stamp with something which has still to do with the "senses" the collector "explores", for example because he likes the way the failed character looks, then I believe that you still believe in the Santa Claus story that people buy these things _not_ to invest or even launder money but "because they are beautiful".

Did you take the time to go through my message?  What occurs if the central bank opts to generate money out of thin air?  There's no value generation involved— just the introduction of new debt devoid of any intrinsic value.

There's no evidence supporting the notion that fiat currencies are backed one-to-one by value; in fact, evidence suggests the contrary.  There is disconnection between the creation of money and tangible assets.  

Ok, so let's debunk this once and for all time

Using the (a bit questionable, but serviceable) postal service analogy, we accrue value in this system in three stages.

Stage 1: Bitcoin's creation and its USPs

The "postal service" isn't just "a simple postal service". It's a postal service that has qualities no other postal service ever had. The boxes will reach the destination in about 10 minutes, no matter where in the world (=block interval). "Boxes" can never get lost because once they are accepted by the system (=confirmations) everybody knows all the time where they are (=public blockchain record), nobody can steal a box (=double spend protection) and the postal service can also not decide to reject a box just because they don't like the sender, the receiver or the value that is inside (=censorship protection). The boxes will also always (as soon as they're accepted) reach the receiver, even if the system doesn't know who the sender and the receiver is. And while once a sender blew up the post office with a "bomb" inside a box (=2010 value overflow), the post office was able to repair it instantly and in 14 years it never happened again, so we can almost safely say it won't repeat.

Stage 2: First boxes are filled

The postal service, due to the USPs named in stage 1, start to get usage when someone puts value in a box. It's important to clarify when value is put inside a box: not when someone uses Bitcoin to make a transaction, and also not when coins are mined. Mining and transacting are still "empty boxes". The system only accrues value when someone accepts the Bitcoins in exchange for something. These Bitcoins are then pegged to this "something". First, such pegs will be private contracts. The peg will only exist for the sender and the receiver. Basically, it means that once in a while the boxes will contain something. But the value is still not clear. They work like NFTs today. Let's say this was the "Pizza era" (Happy Pizza Day ) The pizza transaction was basically a number of pizzas divided into 10.000 boxes.

Stage 3: Boxes get a value (Bitcoin price)

A community begins to form around the postal service. More and more boxes are filled with value when people are accepting Bitcoin either for goods and services or for different currencies or other "assets". The community begins to publish the Stage 2 contracts on the web (=exchange sites, Coinmarketcap ...). This means that people already know what to expect when they use the postal service and how much value is approximately inside of each box. We have now an almost unified box price. And we have an ecosystem of people, companies and other groups willing to put value in the boxes (=pay fiat/sell a good or service for Bitcoin).

What's now exactly inside the box (A box is 1 BTC)?

It's actually not that simple. I would describe it as "the 21 millionth part of the ecosystem" described in Stage 3. If this ecosystem is large enough, then the single box can be valued at $70000. But if the ecosystem shrinks or grows, then the value can also shrink or grow.

You'll say that this value can never be calculated? And why is it so volatile?

First, in the fiat system the value is also not fixed. Let's say a bank creates a loan of $100 and the Central Bank's issues a 100 dollar bill. But one week later speculation makes the currency's value go down. What's now inside the 100 dollar bill? A smaller part of the loan of the bank? Just like fiat, the "box value" can also change with speculation. It can even go to near-zero like in countries like Argentina.

Second, the volatility is just the consequence of the difficult calculation. As we don't know how much value is in the whole ecosystem, we use hints. For example, when the ETFs were approved, people were expecting the ecosystem to grow because new investor classes (US institutional investors) was able to put value in the boxes. This was a hint causing people to value of the boxes no longer $30-40k but instead $50-70k.

So even if the question "what's Bitcoin's value?" is not very simple to answer, there is actually also nothing very mysterious.

@OP: How would you describe collectibles in your system (e.g. coins and bills which are worth lots of $ due to a failure of the printing/minting machine in the numismatic community, stamps, art ...)? Their nature can actually be described in a similar way. But only Bitcoin has "Stage 1", i.e. a real set of advantages over other asset classes.

This is where you are actually getting it wrong and it will continue like this unless you change your overall thinking about Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created as an empty box (if your narration is to be followed) which I never disputed, but it was later filled with value (liquidity), which now makes it an asset. So, in what you cited, the sender never sent an empty box again in case you do not know and as long as it is Bitcoin we are talking about. How can I send Bitcoin to you and you are saying it's empty, how?

Take for instance, a box was created empty (initial stance), and the box was later filled with Apple products (value) and was sent to a receiver. Are you still telling me that the receiver will receive an empty box despite filling it with value which is the Apple products? It is you who will need to accept "digital assets" as it is and stop believing that all assets must have physical things that back them up. The world is revolving, so should we revolve with it as well?

Lastly, today, if I send you 1 BTC, am I not sending you more than $70,000? It is as simple as that. But I found it so troubling that a simple fact like that is difficult for you to understand. Does an empty box or anything that is valueless be able to deliver over $70,000 into your hand upon receiving it? And you still call it empty? C'mon!!!