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!!!

There's no evidence to confirm the existence of this debt.  Consider the scenario where a government arbitrarily prints a trillion dollars without any underlying assets or value creation.  This action merely steals purchasing power from the general populace.  It does not create value.  


Indeed, it does have.  The authority over currency issuance lies with the government.  Therefore, regarding fiat currency as a reliable asset is essentially based on faith, as the government retains the power to render it valueless at its discretion, with or without existing debt.  

Is this person still engaged and steadfast in their belief that Bitcoin holds no value?  Seriously?


Says who?  Who is the sole arbitrator of the term "asset"?  


Unit of debt is fiat currency, and unit of fiat currency is what?  Debt?  


There is no tangible asset, commodity, or physical currency known as the "US dollar".  Its value relies solely on faith.  Nevertheless, it holds a certain value, albeit one that may go unnoticed by many.  

That's not crazy, but rather funny because I myself have never made a comparison between physical assets and crypto assets, nor the way of sending physical objects or goods with sending assets in crypto. Because these two things are definitely different, although sometimes there are people who make examples of physical goods when they want to give a few examples to people who are learning about crypto. So the funny thing is when someone makes a comparison between digital transactions and goods transactions that have a physical element.

Yes, the moment the box was assigned value and liquidity makes it stopped being empty. When you open it in the blockchain now, you will know what you called empty is no longer empty anymore as block values are constantly being assigned. Bitcoin is a complete system that will do all that fiats can do (if allowed) with no exception. This is possible because it is an asset, a digital one for that matter. But this digital/virtual denotation is where you are missing it, or perhaps you just do not want to accept it.

Whether you like it or not, there are classes of assets, and the digital asset is one of them, which will not do less of any asset if you operate it through the right channel. Bitcoin was empty, it is not empty anymore if that will suit you in the plain term and at this point I urge you not to rely on your understanding of this alone. For it to be digital/virtual doesn't make it less of an asset, it is indeed an asset, not until you see an asset physically before it can be valuable or be used for particular physical projects like what Gold, Diamond, Oil, etc are being used for. Once they can still purchase those physical assets (Gold, Diamond, Oil etc) that you mentioned, they are not less valuable regardless of the form they are.

Nothing is empty in Bitcoin anymore, values and purposes are being signed regularly, you should go and learn how the blockchain works even if we try to neglect the trading aspect that proves it valuable. And this is a reality, my friend, it is never delusional.

You are still moving around the same circle, but on one fault, and that is the fact that you do not accept Bitcoin for what it is, and neither do you agree/believe that there can be a digital asset. This is archaic!

Mind you, an asset is an asset whether you like it or not and in case you do not know, Bitcoin is being used as collateral these days, and maybe it will quench most of the questions you asked thus; "If I were to ask you what asset is held by the BTC unit what would you say? Debt? Equity of a company? A picture like Mona Lisa? A patent, copyright, software license? Wheat, silver, oil?" In as much as an entity can fulfil financial obligations, you do not call it empty anymore. Of course, unless you do not even know what you are talking about.

Fine, Bitcoin was created as an empty unit, which I so much agree with you, but the empty unit was later assigned /units/value, which makes it not empty again (digital or not). That value is the liquidity in Bitcoin which gives it the power to settle debts which you always buttress upon without showing concern that Bitcoin can clear debts as well. Just like a human being, you become dead when your spirit leaves you, but when the spirit enters you again, you are alive and have become a living creature that can function perfectly like any other human being.

All these fiat assets you called out are so (living as in my human example) because of people's relevance and liquidity, once that is withdrawn from them, they become irrelevant (dead as in my human example). The same is applicable to Bitcoin, people's liquidity makes an asset worthy, and the moment people withdraw their money, it becomes worthless. So why do you now want us to segregate Bitcoin even as it has the value of people's money and can fulfil financial obligations like fiat assets?

You say Bitcoin units hold nothing, like empty boxes. But aren't empty boxes valuable too? Collectors pay a fortune for limited edition shoeboxes!  Maybe Bitcoin is the ultimate limited-edition digital box.  Who knows, maybe someday people will be fighting over empty Bitcoin wallets at museums!

As for the whole "non-existent asset" thing, tell that to the folks using Bitcoin for everyday transactions or those holding it as a hedge against inflation.  Maybe it's not the Mona Lisa, but scarcity and utility do hold value. You don't have to admit it, but it's a fact.

I think I know where your confusion is coming from, you just do not want to accept that there is a virtual or digital asset simply because they are not what you can see with your eyes physically, but you are so wrong. First, I would like you to perish the idea that you will have to be able to touch something valuable before you can label it an asset. Ordinary papers and drawings that were worthless before are being sold for millions of dollars today, this is not because they suddenly became gold or diamond, but because people place relevance/importance on it. Take for instance the Monalisa paint, it is worth a fortune ($100m in 1962, and now over a billion dollars), but do you think the material used to paint it is worth up to $100? Nevertheless, it's being sold for millions of dollars, why? It's simple, people place a relevance on it, which makes it an asset. This principle is what stocks and even bank cheques and notes/bonds work with. There are values placed on them because liquidity is backing them up.

Also, do not think that the operations of the companies you buy their stocks is the worth of the stocks and the company itself, no, people are buying stocks of companies without having anything to do with the company in any way, and that keeps adding value to the company to the point that people can fulfil financial obligations with stocks (virtual/digital). Asset is all about people's money, and nothing more. The same goes for Bitcoin which has a market capitalization of over $1T, this is huge and many physical assets do not even have up to that and they exist as assets. Today, you may buy your Lamborgini and tell the seller you will clear the bills with a certain amount of Bitcoin. Can a valueless entity as you claim do that? Only an asset can do that just like bonds, cheques and other financial settlement means do. It is you who needs to change your orientation about the virtual/digital assets, for them to have been created empty doesn't mean they will remain empty. The moment people are moving money in to back it up and place importance on it, it becomes an asset. Besides, anything you trade in the financial market is an ASSET. Thankfully, Bitcoin is one of them.

I disagree with you in its strong terms to the point that I didn't even bother to read the rest of what you wrote. Bitcoin is an asset and nothing will change that. I've lived in the world of financial markets, payments and settlements long enough to know the difference in this regard. It is so plain and obvious but I wonder why you have not seen it. Maybe you should do your independent research about it and not rely on your wisdom alone.

Even Investopedia called Bitcoin an asset among other renowned business, trading and investment websites/outlets. There is no controversy here as Bitcoin is a virtual/digital asset, this is unless you do not even know what asset means. Fine, Bitcoin might be guilty of some of what you narrated in the main OP, but certainly, it's an asset. If it is not an asset, why are people buying and holding it? Don't you know that anything you invest your money in is an asset?

For short, an asset is a store of value and Bitcoin perfectly fits into that fact/narration without mincing words. For it to be a "digital" asset doesn't make it less of an asset. The world is revolving and it's high time you accept this easy fact.

Let me say that I appreciate your wisdom and insightfulness about words from the main OP and your subsequent replies. Many take the ideology of Bitcoin to the extreme even though it is not perfect and I think I am one of the few who tells some facts about it here since I've been in the world of investment before the crypto era, unlike many of them who's eyes are just being opened to investment due to cryptocurrency.

But from the main OP, your narration was not without faults but I still say that I give you 85%, you are indeed a thinker. Well, you might be wondering why the denial of the remaining 15%, it's because (though risky) whether physical or virtual, anything could be related and referred to as an asset. All the things that are being labelled assets today are because of the importance/relevance people place on them, and whether virtual or not, once people appreciate it to the point of investing and holding their money in it, they are assets and valuable, which is also applicable to Bitcoin in this context.

That said, Bitcoin as an asset can do almost everything that fiat money can do as well, all you need to do is to convert it one way or the other and the debt, loan, and mortgage as you cited them in the main OP will all be paid. Obligations can be fulfilled with Bitcoin, for real! About the bonds and other collateralized arrangements/agreements, what is happening in the crypto space is not any different, only that it is not so popular in governance and since many centralised systems have nothing to do with cryptocurrency but fiats, the popularity of such arrangements/agreements, and dependency in such can't be as though you are dealing with the fiat currencies like the USD.

Lastly, I give you 100% in this current OP, and my reason is simple, I 100% agree with you (in summary) that the fiat can do without Bitcoin but Bitcoin can't do without fiat which makes the fiat the master regardless of whatever anyone interprets to it. I've always indicated this even as some always preach Bitcoin as the supreme of them all. Let's be realistic!

We let you be with your thoughts and ideas and we will have our own. We can't and don't want to convince you that Bitcoin is something useful and worthy and you shouldn't try and do that with us because we feel your arguments are dumb and not Bitcoin or the fact that energy is being used to run it.

A lot of energy is used to produce a lot of products in the world, are all those products useless or is it dumb for the companies to be using so much energy only to create a materialistic thing such as a doll or anything in general which doesn't serve much purpose but is created because it is sold and they earn money for it. So your arguments don't really make much sense.

Expect receiving a lot of hate and call you for something you don't like since they don't like what they see since it sounds like you hate bitcoin then came here just to spread hate. So try to understand where they came from and open yourself for criticism since you brought up some discussion about bitcoin so expect some words that you don't like to here will come up. But I don't really think that bitcoin is easy rich scheme since there are so many struggles to face before we can earn this. Maybe there are some people spread some wrong information about it that's why those newbies think about bitcoin is get-rich-quick-scheme but in reality there's nothing like that exist in real world.

Let me ask the same question to you. What are you trying to achieve exactly? What are your arguments about if you don't hate Bitcoin or think it is useless? Let's say you don't hate Bitcoin but you just think it is something not worth giving this much hype or importance or it is something completely useless, in either way, you are not going to gain anything by sitting in the forum created by the creator of Bitcoin and try and convince people about what your beliefs are because that is not going to work. So it's dumb of you to be trying to achieve that here. You can go preach what you are trying to prove here on some busy street and you might find a few people standing with you among the crowd but that is barely going to happen here, my friend.

Besides, if you think Bitcoin is useless or whatever, do you believe that companies and firms such as MicroStrategy, Grayscale, Blackrock, Microsoft, Tesla, and many more along with their owners and management are a bunch of fools being interested in something useless?