Could this be the answer to the regression theorem issue?

[evoorhees]

Many of us Austrian econ types have been concerned about Bitcoin as it relates to the regression theorem. Money is supposed to emerge from its "use value" toward a "trade value". Gold is useful for decoration and other purposes, beyond being a money. But, what is Bitcoin useful for beyond its use as money?  If it's only useful as money, can it really be a money?

Well, consider the following: Bitcoin is also a service. With the Bitcoin software, you can send a payment to another person, free of charge (almost). In the normal economy, other companies provide similar services (paypal, western union, bank transfers, etc.). Sending money from one person to another is indeed a demanded service.

So perhaps Bitcoin's "use value" comes in full or in part from this ability it bestows to send money, or value, or units of account, across distances securely. In this way it offers a substitute service to the paypals of the world. From this "use value," the regression theorem is perhaps satisfied, is it not?  And perhaps many people don't initially see this, because "Bitcoin" is both a money and a software service, and the fact that both components share the same name obscures the service of Bitcoin behind the monetary unit of Bitcoins.

Gold's use value is primarily as a decorative good. Bitcoin's use value is primarily as a transfer service. Bitcoin as a transfer service then allows the open market to value the units for this transfer... and then the price on day 1 is based on the price on day -1, etc etc.

Thoughts?

[fabianhjr]

I agree with it, so far my view is that it has value because it is convenient.

It is convenient to store, transfer, launder, and even use.

An interesting thing is how many people have this view. :/

[EconomicOracle]

I don't know what the regression theorem issue is, but I think bitcoin is the solution to it.

[fabianhjr]

That is hilarious, you don't know something yet Bitcoin solves it. xD

I fear we might become a cult sooner or later.

Quite close to the situation:

[Anth0n]

My thoughts are that originally, no one possessed any Bitcoins. Then some miners decided to use computing resources to acquire them. Therefore, Bitcoins must have had some initial value, otherwise 0 resources would have been used to acquire them in the first place. The regression theorem is satisfied.

[Basiley]

yep, mining overhead, cntribution to bitcoin value is minimal.
when you minus market speculation/gaming and multiply on market/demands growth ...

[Babylon]

Many of us Austrian econ types have been concerned about Bitcoin as it relates to the regression theorem. Money is supposed to emerge from its "use value" toward a "trade value". Gold is useful for decoration and other purposes, beyond being a money. But, what is Bitcoin useful for beyond its use as money?  If it's only useful as money, can it really be a money?

Well, consider the following: Bitcoin is also a service. With the Bitcoin software, you can send a payment to another person, free of charge (almost). In the normal economy, other companies provide similar services (paypal, western union, bank transfers, etc.). Sending money from one person to another is indeed a demanded service.

So perhaps Bitcoin's "use value" comes in full or in part from this ability it bestows to send money, or value, or units of account, across distances securely. In this way it offers a substitute service to the paypals of the world. From this "use value," the regression theorem is perhaps satisfied, is it not?  And perhaps many people don't initially see this, because "Bitcoin" is both a money and a software service, and the fact that both components share the same name obscures the service of Bitcoin behind the monetary unit of Bitcoins.

Gold's use value is primarily as a decorative good. Bitcoin's use value is primarily as a transfer service. Bitcoin as a transfer service then allows the open market to value the units for this transfer... and then the price on day 1 is based on the price on day -1, etc etc.

Thoughts?

This was why i got into Bitcoin originally.  As an alternative to paypal.

The amount of merchants taking bitcoin has increased dramatically since then, although it is still nowhere near the level of paypal.

[hugolp]

My thoughts are that originally, no one possessed any Bitcoins. Then some miners decided to use computing resources to acquire them. Therefore, Bitcoins must have had some initial value, otherwise 0 resources would have been used to acquire them in the first place. The regression theorem is satisfied.

The initial value for bitcoins was based on the entrepreneurship of the first miners. You could do nothing with bitcoins back then, not even change them for dollars or euros, but this miners were entrepreneurs with a vission for bitcoin and that gave bitcoin value for them.