2013-11-21 YouTube - Peter Schiff: Bitcoin vs. Gold

[odolvlobo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L7SOPDOvvI

His basic argument is that Bitcoin doesn't have intrinsic value like gold, but what he really means is that Bitcoin doesn't satisfy Mises' Regression Theorem. He argues that Bitcoins value as a superior medium of exchange does not really give it any value, but I think that his argument is weak.

He's a smart guy and he know what he is talking about, but the point is moot. He is just arguing over definitions. In my opinion if Bitcoin doesn't meet the classic requirements to be considered a currency, then perhaps those requirements need to change.

[HeliKopterBen]

The intrinsic value argument has been beat to death.  The market disagrees with this argument.

[LiteCoinGuy]

its a man with a dogma that only silver and gold is good but every time in history has its opportunities.

[TraderTimm]

My problem with the die-hard precious metals crowd is that they are so absolutely certain their method of wealth storage is forever unchanging and static.

Nothing is. Hell, we admit that perhaps another blockchain could surpass Bitcoin - or that we fork in radical ways that make it much different than it is currently. We don't claim that Bitcoin, as it exists now, will be the absolute same 20 years into the future.

I think that is the key difference, that we're willing to adapt and understand that new ideas come along to be integrated or renounced, whatever the case may be. It makes Bitcoin more robust, as a result.

When I hear a die-hard goldbug ranting about how gold has had its thousands-of-years perfect run, I can only think "all good things do come to an end, you know". Gold isn't perfect. All it would take is another element of perceived scarcity, or perhaps a glut of it being found or towed into orbit from a nearby asteroid belt. That's about it.

But no, they're so sure....

[grondilu]

In my opinion if Bitcoin doesn't meet the classic requirements to be considered a currency, then perhaps those requirements need to change.

Agreed, but it's not even because of bitcoin.  I've always thought the intrisic value part of what defines a currency is dubious.  And it seems to me that, from an anthropological point of view, there are plenty of examples of currencies that were genuinely fiat.  In the bitcoin community, we've been using one of them as an analogy for quite time (I think the first one to mention it was Gavin) :

[No_2]

"Bitcoin doesn't have intrinsic value".

Wrong: Bitcoin is the monetisation of proof of work.

"Bitcoins can't be used for anything else".

Wrong: Bitcoins are an abstracted form of trustless contract that don't require a third party; money is just one implementation of this.

"Buy my product instead".

No thanks.

He needs to do more research.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

"Bitcoin doesn't have intrinsic value".
Wrong: Bitcoin is the monetisation of proof of work.

I disagree here.  Bitcoin doesn't derive its value from the work.  You can come up with all kinds of useless work, that doesn't give the work a value.  
The proof of work system functions to prevent double-spending, and as a fair way of distributing the new coins.

My problem with the die-hard precious metals crowd is that they are so absolutely certain their method of wealth storage is forever unchanging and static.

Nothing is. Hell, we admit that perhaps another blockchain could surpass Bitcoin - or that we fork in radical ways that make it much different than it is currently. We don't claim that Bitcoin, as it exists now, will be the absolute same 20 years into the future.

I think that is the key difference, that we're willing to adapt and understand that new ideas come along to be integrated or renounced, whatever the case may be. It makes Bitcoin more robust, as a result.

When I hear a die-hard goldbug ranting about how gold has had its thousands-of-years perfect run, I can only think "all good things do come to an end, you know". Gold isn't perfect. All it would take is another element of perceived scarcity, or perhaps a glut of it being found or towed into orbit from a nearby asteroid belt. That's about it.

But no, they're so sure....

+1, I used to be a huge PM bull, but if bitcoin really takes off and remains the top crypto for the forseeable future, it is just better (although I might be overlooking certain niches atm).

[No_2]

"Bitcoin doesn't have intrinsic value".
Wrong: Bitcoin is the monetisation of proof of work.

I disagree here.  Bitcoin doesn't derive its value from the work.  You can come up with all kinds of useless work, that doesn't give the work a value.  
...

I said: "Bitcoin is the monetisation of proof of work" not: "Bitcoin derives its value from work."

Finding a value, through work, that satisfies the current difficulty chriteria for a given block is valuable because it then grants the finder some bitcoins for that block; these tokens or money can then be used later. Hence the proof of work is monetised into a trantresferable and reusable form. That I would argue is its intrinsic value.

[cryptoanarchist]

"Bitcoin doesn't have intrinsic value".
Wrong: Bitcoin is the monetisation of proof of work.

I disagree here.  Bitcoin doesn't derive its value from the work.  You can come up with all kinds of useless work, that doesn't give the work a value.  
...

I said: "Bitcoin is the monetisation of proof of work" not: "Bitcoin derives its value from work."

Finding a value, through work, that satisfies the current difficulty chriteria for a given block is valuable because it then grants the finder some bitcoins for that block; these tokens or money can then be used later. Hence the proof of work is monetised into a trantresferable and reusable form. That I would argue is its intrinsic value.

I like intrinsic utility better. Value is subjective.