Forbes article on bitcoin

[wachtwoord]

Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, because nothing has intrinsic value, because value isn't intrinsic - it requires a valuer.

Bitcoin isn't backed by anything, because it's not a promise like a gold-backed dollar used to be.

Bitcoin is like a club with ironclad rules. As long as that club exists, those rules ensure that your BTC have purchasing power within that club. It's "backed" simply by the solidarity of that that social formation, the Bitcoin fraternity, the Bitcoin community, whatever you want to call it. And that solidarity is ensured by the rules of the protocol and the fact that following those rules has proven extremely valuable and promises to be even more extremely valuable in the future.

+1

We really need to stop people from trying to come up with creative arguments for Bitcoin's intrinsic value or explanations for what bitcoins are backed by (e.g., the network! mining! math!). These concepts just don't apply and/or are irrelevant.

Trying to answer "What is Bitcoin backed by?" (without just pointing out that it isn't a meaningful question) is like trying to answer "What color is Bitcoin?"

Bitcoin has intrinsic value because it's useful and scarce. The usefulness lies in it's properties.

No it's not backed by anything.

[Kazimir]

And what was gold backed by, again?

Physics.

So is pig shit. Not generally accepted as backing for anything though

And physics is backed by mathematics, just like Bitcoin. So I'd say Bitcoin > Gold, backing/security-wise.

[wachtwoord]

And what was gold backed by, again?

Physics.

So is pig shit. Not generally accepted as backing for anything though

And physics is backed by mathematics, just like Bitcoin. So I'd say Bitcoin > Gold, backing/security-wise.

Pig shit isn't scarce. Gold is made (relatively) scarce by physics because of the amount of energy needed to be gold (and even more to form it). At the same time, it's durable, divisible and movable (in useful quantities).

Bitcoin is much better though

[Kazimir]

+1

We really need to stop people from trying to come up with creative arguments for Bitcoin's intrinsic value or explanations for what bitcoins are backed by (e.g., the network! mining! math!). These concepts just don't apply and/or are irrelevant.

Trying to answer "What is Bitcoin backed by?" (without just pointing out that it isn't a meaningful question) is like trying to answer "What color is Bitcoin?"

Well, people tend to think that fiat money or gold have or are some kind of 'backing', which supposedly would make them more trustworthy, and which they think Bitcoin isn't or doesn't have.

Obviously they're wrong: Bitcoin is backed by mathematics and cryptography. Doesn't get any more trustworthy than that.

[Kazimir]

Pig shit isn't scarce.

Panda shit, then?

Gold is made (relatively) scarce by physics because of the amount of energy needed to be gold (and even more to form it). At the same time, it's durable, divisible and movable (in useful quantities).

True, although I would hardly call gold 'divisible' and 'movable'. It's doable of course, but not in a very practical fashion. Can't easily chip off a gram of gold at the bakery to pay my groceries.

Bitcoin is much better though

Agree

[wachtwoord]

Pig shit isn't scarce.

Panda shit, then?

Okay. Can you tell the difference? Someone probably will be able to replicate

Gold is made (relatively) scarce by physics because of the amount of energy needed to be gold (and even more to form it). At the same time, it's durable, divisible and movable (in useful quantities).

True, although I would hardly call gold 'divisible' and 'movable'. It's doable of course, but not in a very practical fashion. Can't easily chip off a gram of gold at the bakery to pay my groceries.

Everything's relative, but moving wealth with Gold is easier than with Silver because there is less off it. There are practical limitations about divisibility also. Finally, you haven't even started about scraping and counter-fitting

Bitcoin is much better though

Agree

Good, but not the discussion at hand

PS: Is Kazimir a Peter F. Hamilton reference by any chance?

[niothor]

Why do all threads about bitcoin end up in pig-shitting and panda-shitting fiat?
I'm beginning to think that this love for bitcoin is actually a hate for fiat money.

[wachtwoord]

Why do all threads about bitcoin end up in pig-shitting and panda-shitting fiat?
I'm beginning to think that this love for bitcoin is actually a hate for fiat money.

It is kind of the same thing.

[Kazimir]

Why do all threads about bitcoin end up in pig-shitting and panda-shitting fiat?
I'm beginning to think that this love for bitcoin is actually a hate for fiat money.

Once you actually understand Bitcoin, you start to realize how ridiculous fiat really is.

PS: Is Kazimir a Peter F. Hamilton reference by any chance?

Haha, no! Coincidence