Does Bitcoin have real value?

[Mr.right85]

store of value so that the whole world accept gold as an investment asset. When someone buys gold, he understands very well that anyone will recognize and accept gold, because what he buys is a metal that has value.


Conclusion from my post:
which determines whether or not there is value in the medium of exchange, not in the object being exchanged.

In other got is to determine if something have value, we must first of all understand the term value. Value talks about worth and acceptance (that’s me keeping it simple). If we are to look at it, it doesn’t need to be backed by anything as a determinant of its worth or generally accepted by the public before we can say it has value.

Gold assumes a physical nature while cryptocurrencies takes an intangible nature and that’s okay. It doesn’t have to have a physical nature or be backed by something or generally accepted to have its value. The seller and buyer determines its value. When you buy programs or codes on the web, it doesn’t have a physical nature and yet you exchange your hard currency for it. Bitcoin is no difference and it’s still at its growth phase.

The multitude that accepts today or are aware of it today is far different from 10years ago. So it would continue until it attains a global acceptance.

[reasonspace]

Maybe there isn’t even an objective way to quantify value, even tho there’s many different kinds of values. Value is never a constant, it changes over time. Even the most stable store of value in humankind, gold, doesn’t have a fixed value, not even a market cap is ever constant. So you could ask what is real value in the first place.

I think it's important to distinguish between value and price. A piece of chocolate cake from that Michelin star has a certain amount of value to you, but perhaps the price is too high for you and so you make do with an alternative that provides similar but not exactly the same value. But something must have some value for it to deserve any price. If you assign a price to something worthless (of no value) by buying it, then you will suffer the consequences if you end up being the last one to "hold the bag."

The fourth condition means it must already be considered a value before it can be used as a currency. If there isn’t independent support for its having value, the claim that Bitcoin has value is circular. See below:
1. Bitcoin is a value because it can be used as a currency.
2. Bitcoin can be used as a currency because it is a [long-term stored] value.

Second, the fact that Bitcoin is finite doesn’t by itself make it a value. Scarcity does not determine whether something is a value or not. Scarcity only determines the price of something that is already determined to be a value because of another reason. For example, certain forms of toxic waste may be scarce but that doesn’t mean the waste is a value.

It’s not circular your assumptions are just off. The two criterias for a store of value are:

1. Scarcity(Supply relative to other goods).
2. Durability(No loss in functionality with repeated use).

These two alone don’t determine if the market will assign value to it, or if this will be used as money over everything else, but you can determine how good of a store of value it is with these. But to be actually used as one, it needs actual use by the market, and for this other conditions need to be met first.

We are in agreement that scarcity and durability are necessary but insufficient conditions. We don't agree that only other condition (if this is indeed your position) is for people to say that it is valuable. This is the subjective theory of value that I've refuted in my original post.

I invite you to take a look at the argument map that I created to help me write the article to see the circular loop in visual form.

https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/693?token=845ecf75-edc9-42fc-9440-bfebe8d42072

[tadamichi]

The fourth condition means it must already be considered a value before it can be used as a currency. If there isn’t independent support for its having value, the claim that Bitcoin has value is circular. See below:
1. Bitcoin is a value because it can be used as a currency.
2. Bitcoin can be used as a currency because it is a [long-term stored] value.

Second, the fact that Bitcoin is finite doesn’t by itself make it a value. Scarcity does not determine whether something is a value or not. Scarcity only determines the price of something that is already determined to be a value because of another reason. For example, certain forms of toxic waste may be scarce but that doesn’t mean the waste is a value.

It’s not circular your assumptions are just off. The two criterias for a store of value are:

1. Scarcity(Supply relative to other goods).
2. Durability(No loss in functionality with repeated use).

These two alone don’t determine if the market will assign value to it, or if this will be used as money over everything else, but you can determine how good of a store of value it is with these. But to be actually used as one, it needs actual use by the market, and for this other conditions need to be met first.

We are in agreement that scarcity and durability are necessary but insufficient conditions. We don't agree that only other condition (if this is indeed your position) is for people to say that it is valuable. This is the subjective theory of value that I've refuted in my original post.

I invite you to take a look at the argument map that I created to help me write the article to see the circular loop in visual form.

https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/693?token=845ecf75-edc9-42fc-9440-bfebe8d42072

If you start to evaluate Bitcoin as money, it might help you understand this. The circularity argument has long been thought about in economics. The argument below might be what youre looking for:

The Money Regression and Emergence of Money from the Barter Economy
The entire purpose of the regression theorem was to help explain an apparent paradox of money: how does money have value as a medium of exchange if it is valued because it serves as a medium of exchange?  Menger and Mises helped break this apparent circularity by explaining the essential time component missing from the phrasing of the paradox.

As Rothbard explains in Man, Economy, and State (p 270),
"...a money price at the end of day X is determined by the marginal utilities of money and the good as they existed at the beginning of day X. But the marginal utility of money is based, as we have seen above, on a previously existing array of money prices. Money is demanded and considered useful because of its already existing money prices. Therefore, the price of a good on day X is determined by the marginal utility of the good on day X and the marginal utility of money on day X, which last in turn depends on the prices of goods on day X – 1. The economic analysis of money prices is therefore not circular. If prices today depend on the marginal utility of money today, the latter is dependent on money prices yesterday." [all emphasis added]

Rothbard then goes on to explain that in order for money to emerge from a barter economy, it must have a preexisting commodity value.  This commodity value arises from barter demand for the potential money in direct consumption (i.e. ornamentation).  This value seeds future estimations of the value of the money as a medium of exchange.  The natural market emergence of money is thus fully explained.

The Monetary Economy
However, once an economy has been monetized and a memory of price ratios for goods and services has been established, a money may lose its direct commodity value and still be used as a money (medium of indirect exchange).  Rothbard explains (p 275):
"On the other hand, it does not follow from this analysis that if an extant money were to lose its direct uses, it could no longer be used as money. Thus, if gold, after being established as money, were suddenly to lose its value in ornaments or industrial uses, it would not necessarily lose its character as a money. Once a medium of exchange has been established as a money, money prices continue to be set. If on day X gold loses its direct uses, there will still be previously existing money prices that had been established on day X – 1, and these prices form the basis for the marginal utility of gold on day X. Similarly, the money prices thereby determined on day X form the basis for the marginal utility of money on day X + 1. From X on, gold could be demanded for its exchange value alone, and not at all for its direct use. Therefore, while it is absolutely necessary that a money originate as a commodity with direct uses, it is not absolutely necessary that the direct uses continue after the money has been established."

This explains the history of fiat currencies.  They originally started off as simple names for weights of commodity money (silver) that developed out of the pre-monetary barter economy.  Despite later losing their ties to direct commodity value through state interference, paper currency retained status as money because of memory of previous money prices.  This factor is so strong that the relationship between gold and the USD, for example, is somewhat inverted.  Gold no longer circulates as a common medium of exchange.   Prices are set in USD, not in gold.  Most individuals wishing to trade in gold do so based on their knowledge of USD/gold price ratios.  ("Hey, let me buy that $100 couch from you in gold?"  "Ok, USD/gold is $1000/oz. Give me 1/10oz of gold.")  Legal tender laws, state taxation, and the entire financial regulatory environment maintain this inertia of USD prices and make it challenging to return to gold money directly, despite the destructive inflationary nature of fiat currencies.

The Emergence of the Bitcoin Economy
The very first businesses in the Bitcoin economy were exchangers (NewLibertyStandard, BitcoinMarket, BitcoinExchange,....).  This is not an accident, but flows from the analysis above.  In order for Bitcoins to serve as a medium of exchange without commodity value for uses besides indirect exchange, there must be a translated knowledge of money prices.  Market exchangers fill this gap and give Bitcoin users access to this knowledge.  Bitcoins may therefore currently serve as a money intermediary for paypal dollars\pecunix\euros.  But why is there demand for Bitcoin over USD??  This is a subjective valuation arising from properties such as anonymity, decentralized system of clearance, cryptographic trust, predetermined and defined rate of growth, built in deflation, divisibility, low transaction fees, etc.... inherent to the Bitcoin system.

The essential point is that once exchange can occur between a money (USD) and Bitcoins, providers of goods have a means by which to value Bitcoins as a potential medium of exchange.  The money regression is satisfied, because taken back far enough we reach traditional commodity money: BITCOINS -> USD -> MONETIZED GOLD & SILVER [start monetary economy] -> [end barter economy] COMMODITY GOLD & SILVER.  

Of course, if a major meltdown occurred and knowledge of all price ratios was wiped out, Bitcoin probably would NOT directly emerge as a money (assuming Bitcoins have limited value outside of exchange).  Fiat currencies with zero direct barter value certainly would not.  Commodities such as gold and silver that have widely recognized direct value in barter would likely emerge first.  The economy would then be monetized with price ratios in gold and silver.  Bitcoins then, being valued for intrinsic properties amenable to exchange, might then become prevalent in trade.  Initially, creators of value would continue to make their price value ratios in terms of the true money (gold oz/BTC ratio), but with time Bitcoin prices (BTC) can emerge (see vekja.net as example).  We are in this initial phase now.  

Therefore, so long as exchange of BTC and USD/Euros/etc… occurs, knowledge of existing price ratios can be utilized in the Bitcoin economy.  In time as Bitcoins become increasingly marketable, these fiat<->BTC price ratios will seed direct BTC price ratios.  The Bitcoin Economy thus emerges.  The Misean regression theorem is satisfied.

XC

edit: clarified possibility of direct emergence of bitcoin as money from barter economy.

[reasonspace]

If you start to evaluate Bitcoin as money, it might help you understand this. The circularity argument has long been thought about in economics.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that I should have as a starting premise, "Bitcoin is money"? And do you also mean that I should not have any supporting argument(s) to prove why this as an epistemic status of "probable" or "certain"? If this is not what you mean, then perhaps you can elaborate more on what you mean.

Thank you for the quoted content. I have disagreements with the content. Here are some of them.

1. The commodity (or ornamental) value of gold ensures that there will always be a buyer of last resort. It will be the "consumer" of that gold. This means that the gold you're holding in your hands is actual wealth and not only some intermediary product that you can exchange with a willing trader for actual wealth in the future. And the fact that gold is used as a medium of exchange (in a free market) just means that the buyer of last resort is willing to forgo the gold because there is greater demand (i.e., someone willing to pay a higher price) for the gold for use as a medium of exchange.

2. Fiat's currency support isn't "memory price". It's legal tender laws, tax laws, price control laws, etc. It is the gun. I also think that loan agreements denominated in that currency also serve to motivate people to collect fiat currency. However, if the gun goes away, then I think that people will shift away from using that currency for future loan agreements. Evidence of force's support for fiat currency can be found in their disappearance from use, despite "memory prices", for countries that no longer exists (e.g., the Confederacy, South Vietnam after 1975, etc.)

3. Isn't the instability in the exchange rate for Bitcoin a good indicator that the "price memory" theory isn't working?

[nullius]

Let’s use the US dollar as an example of something that has a real value. [...same paragraph...] This requirement is forced at the point of a gun. The US dollar is, at its core, a type of ticket that you must give to the government to allow you to live. That makes the US dollar valuable to your life.

Fiat's currency support isn't "memory price". It's legal tender laws, tax laws, price control laws, etc. It is the gun.

Money so “valuable” that people must be forced at gunpoint to use it—such wow!

It would be otiose to speculate on whether you would preach to slaves about the “value” to them of their chains, or cook up a sophistic theory deprecating the value of a pair of bolt-cutters.  Of course, when I put it that way, you will rationalize a counterargument however you want.


I was just now reading OP.  Musing on an ungrounded pile of abstractions without adequate empiricism.  The naïve reading of books, out of contact with reality.

OP reads as if someone decided that the U.S. dollar has value, and Bitcoin has no value—then spent some time researching ways to rationalize this conclusion.  Needless to say, it is riddled with the sorts of fallacies that some of us have seen too many times to be interested in further waste of time.

I searched all three pages for the word “petrodollar”.  Zero hits.  My, are you in for a surprise when the scam collapses.

Please advise, why are you even here?  If you seek to debate with some Bitcoiners, or maybe to preach to them under a doth-protest-too-much^* username the salvation of the Almighty Dollar, then perhaps some of the folks here will enjoy the opportunity to practise answering common fallacies.  But others of us are too busy for such diversions; and for my part, much though it will shock some of my friends, I actually agree with Nietzsche’s conclusions about Socrates.  So as for debates.

^* Although I see that it seems you are, or may purport to be affiliated with some website, it does not escape my notice that preaching to people under the name “reasonspace” is like saving souls for Jesus under the name “saintly_virtue”—or seeking no-escrow trade deals under the moniker of “honest_trader”.  Cf. “RationalWiki”, a propaganda site.  My own term for this:  Those names doth-protest-too-much, methinks.  By contrast, what may be inferred from my name?  I loudly brag and declare to the world that I am nobody’s, I am of nothing—I belong to zero!

[tadamichi]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that I should have as a starting premise, "Bitcoin is money"?

Hint: Cash means money, maybe you should look at what it was initially designed as(whitepaper) to understand what the creator tried to achieve. See you dont have to believe its money, but this hint can maybe save you some time, because evaluating a monetary good is in complete contrast to evaluting some resource. Money is non-productive by nature, while resources are. For the success as money the monetary functions are the deciding factor.

You cant eat your money, cant drink it, cant do anything with it, except maybe wiping your ass. Wood is amazing resource and you can use it for many things, but try using it as money and you will fail hard. The irony is that any rational personal woud still prefer money over an actual resource(that can do something), because you can acquire any resource you want with it. Also some worthless paper won over gold, how can you explain it?

And do you also mean that I should not have any supporting argument(s) to prove why this as an epistemic status of "probable" or "certain"?

You should, but reality doesnt care if you just feel right and put too much emphasis on false assumptions.

1. The commodity (or ornamental) value of gold ensures that there will always be a buyer of last resort.

This doesnt matter much for money. The commodity use of gold is what? Maybe 1 trillion a year(i didnt check an accurate number), while the market cap is over 11 trillion big. Giving us a monetary premium of 91%. Your last resort buyer wouldnt matter, if you lost 90% of your wealth. And when ellaborating money optimizing for the last resort is counterproductive, because its there to function in a civilization, in an acopalypse you will worry about resources/ survival and not money.

It is the gun

Its not lmao, now youre drifting in pseudo-intellectual bs. Force doesnt indicate any value, how much value does it have when you take the gun away? If i gave you 500.000$ would you refuse it, because you werent forced? Gold is a terrible medium of exchange, try to run around with 500.000$ in gold and see how safe/ comfortable it is. Try to pay for a coffee in gold and see how it well it works(hardly divisible). Have some gold coin that isnt popular and dirty and see how fungible it is. There was a practical need to overcome the limitations of gold as money, paper makes using money easier and more efficient. That politicians robbed paper money its beneficial function, doesnt mean it was adopted out of force initially. How does Bitcoin have value right now to people, without putting a gun on peoples head?  

Evidence of force's support for fiat currency can be found in their disappearance from use, despite "memory prices", for countries that no longer exists (e.g., the Confederacy, South Vietnam after 1975, etc.)

It doesnt mean a currency cant disappear, but the new currency will still use memory prices. And Menger talked about the natural emergence of money specifically, indicating an evolution taking place, not some authoritarian that just decided one day that money had to be used. Money would emerge again, even without further government intervention, it could even survive a fall of the government. The disappearance of currencies doesnt prove these theories wrong.

3. Isn't the instability in the exchange rate for Bitcoin a good indicator that the "price memory" theory isn't working?

Nah, price memory means the purchasing power of money isnt a circular assumption, when we keep going back to when no money existed, then we must arrive at a point where the first good to emerge as money had an objective value for something other than being used as money. When money emerges, goods will start to be priced in money and it will stay this way, even if the medium of exchange changes. Bitcoin is a good with completley inelastic supply, so any big volatility is expected, because there isnt any mechanism to stabilise it. No good has a guaranteed fixed price/exchange rate, even if its primariliy used as a medium of exchange.

Im still not satisfied with your refusal of the subjective theory of value, what value would any good have, if we didnt exist?

[Jo_Liu]

I think the only reason why money is currency is out of the public consensus, which is we need it. When something is widely acknowledged, it builts its own power to convert messages. Gold and silver are once the currency in circulation, however, no matter how much value they possessed, they are eliminated by times from being used as currency. That is how things go all the time, and same as currency. The appearance of Bitcoin fully shows implied that the need for some cryptocurrencies is inevitable. And seeing through those years, though many bumps in the road, it is thriving from an overall view. And it will definately keep this trend in future. Though Bitcoin is not like gold or silver in the way of possessing value, it has value for sure. And the value possessed by Bitcoin will definately go up as the Growing of public consensus. 

[darkv0rt3x]

One reason that has not been given, but may be the actual reason why many people buy and hold Bitcoin is its use as a betting instrument. That is, you buy it paying X dollars today in the hope that you will get >X dollars when you sell it at some time in the future. Of course, if it has no other value than that of a betting instrument, then this is really a game of "holding the bag" with the last people out getting screwed.

That is dead wrong. I mean, it's correct for probably 80% of the people dealing with Bitcoin, unfortunately, but the point of buying Bitcoin should never be to get more shiat coins back. That is the mistake of high time preference people!

You are also assuming things on your own. See, many things end up getting value because more and more people end up agreeing with that idea. But that's what markets are made of.
I can give you an example that sometimes happens to me that makes me thinking just like that. Like "who decided that the word <spoon> represents an object that allows you to take objects into your mouth?? Why not <priche>, <glast> or anything else"?? Note: those sets of chars are only that. Sets of chars that I put together randomly! No idea if there are words like that!

So, when you say that something has value, maybe it gets real value if more people agree with that! Someone decided, and others agreed that <spoon> could be a set of chars to represent the object that allows you to carry objects into your mouth. I know that words has their own etymology, but I think you get the point.

[franky1]

fiats utility(reasons to keep circulating and desire to pass hands) is in the laws of minimum wage and tax laws and having to price things on store shelves in the amount

the value of fiat is not backed by gold(not been case  for 50+ years)
its value derives from the minimum wage law where by an employers costs of labour is BEST case having to pay someone $7.50 for an hour of work..
they are not allowed to in that state pay their employee any less..
(ok pre-empting some rebuttals.. i know some US states have a $15 min wage and some have $10 and some have waitresses and interns at lower.. you find you lowest number and go with that number if it pleases you)


however from the employee/workers point of view of their 'cost of living' their value of the dollar is different. they want a 'living wage' value that is more like $15+ for an hour

but if you take the lowest figure. thats the underling fiat value.. (not the random numbers inbetween of variance state to state/person to person or different employee income and living costs) finding the lowest number is fiats value
(again pre-empting rebuttas, again i know individuals have different costs of living and incomes, but take the lowest number..(some use the social security/unemployment as the ultimate low))

[Thara20]

Currency is a generally accepted form of payment, usually regulated by governments. Fiat money, or normal currency, even has exchange markets and fluctuations relative to other currencies. It’s just paper.

When considering crypto currency ,there are multiple digital currencies and they fluctuate. So this is considered a market and valuable.

Bitcoin actually made the adoption rate faster. Meaning there are countries which have adopted bitcoin and are very open to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a digital asset and scarce as well, which makes it more valuable than other digital assets. With convenience and decentralised functionality Bitcoin eases international trades.

[tadamichi]

One reason that has not been given, but may be the actual reason why many people buy and hold Bitcoin is its use as a betting instrument. That is, you buy it paying X dollars today in the hope that you will get >X dollars when you sell it at some time in the future. Of course, if it has no other value than that of a betting instrument, then this is really a game of "holding the bag" with the last people out getting screwed.

That is dead wrong. I mean, it's correct for probably 80% of the people dealing with Bitcoin, unfortunately, but the point of buying Bitcoin should never be to get more shiat coins back. That is the mistake of high time preference people!

I wouldnt even buy into his argument here, because then the whole concept of investing can be classified as a betting instrument. Its ignoring that the whole system makes it necessary for people to invest at the moment, because there are no interest rates that are higher than inflation since a long time now. This is literally one of the goals of inflation, to make it impossible for people to "hoard"(was called saving once) money, so the economy can grow faster, which doesnt work forever as were seeing now. The attempt to criticize something without going into the causes is short sighted. People have to use an alternative Store of Value, because inflation makes this a necessity. Phrasing it like people are gambling because theyre choosing Bitcoin is pathetic. Most new forms of money, that have the perfect properties of a Store of Value, would be used for this purpose first. This doesnt make it a betting instrument and its not Bitcoins fault for rising/ decreasing in value, maybe read what a market is.

[mindrust]

Of course it does.

1 Bitcoin is approximately worth 20 thousand US dollars which is enough to buy a decent used car everywhere in the world. Whether you say it has value or not has no meaning. The world isn't spinning around you. Maybe bitcoin is worthless to you, that's fine. Lots of other people think that way too but on the other hand, lots people people think its worth $20k right now.

The US dollar has value too. No matter how crappy it is getting, people still use it.

[ven7net]

A really interesting question about the value of Bitcoin, but in order to understand it, you need to understand what the value itself is. As for me, value is when a certain product or asset is in demand, that is, someone needs it and is at least willing to pay for it or exchange it for something else. If you put this on Bitcoin, it turns out that BTC still has value and it has its own value, which certain people are willing to pay. On the other hand, if BTC did not have all this, then the price of Bitcoin would probably be equal to zero. So in this case, we can say that Bitcoin has value and has a certain value, however, these two values ​​change periodically, which makes Bitcoin itself less predictable.

[BitcoinPanther]

From the standpoint of market value, Bitcoin has a real value since the market value is based on supply and demand. 

Market value is based on supply and demand and is the price or amount that someone is willing to pay in the market.

If someone is willing to pay for Bitcoin then we can say that there is a market value for Bitcoin.

From an economic standpoint, I also think that Bitcoin has real value.

Economic value is the measurement of the benefit derived from a good or service to an individual or a company.

Bitcoin can be used as a money transfer from one point of the globe to another point of the globe without the hassle of a third-party finance system. 


How about Bitcoins intrinsic value?   

Similar to Fiat currency, Bitcoin (or most of the cryptocurrencies) is also not backed by any gold or silver hence does not have any intrinsic value. The value of any currency comes from the backing of the state and the trust that people have over the government. Hence, for any money to be established as an exchange of value within a network, it is important for the network to trust it regardless of who (or what) is backing it.

Though many anti-Bitcoin believe that it has no intrinsic value,  many believe Bitcoin has because of these factors.
Utility
Scarcity
Marginal Cost of Production
you can read a detailed explanation here

[Smack That Ace]

Demand is the source of value, so as long as demand is there, any good or asset will have value, as long as it is in demand. Whether an item has a low or high value depends on its quality and scarcity. Bitcoin is currently priced at about 20k $ and that is the real value at the moment, as long as you sell it, there will be buyers right away. Bitcoin assets are highly volatile as people tend to speculate in search of profits and its value is highly volatile.

[reasonspace]

Im still not satisfied with your refusal of the subjective theory of value, what value would any good have, if we didnt exist?

Please don’t take my lack of comment on your other points as agreement, but I only want to respond to this point because it is so much more important than the other points. This is because a) I think it’s the primary reason why people believe Bitcoin has value (Smack That Ace’s post right above this post is an example of this theory in action) and b) the validity of the subjective theory of value affects more things than just Bitcoin.

To answer your question of, “What value would any good have if we didn’t exist?” The answer is: No value.

I wrote in a response to another person that value requires the existence of a value. More specifically, a thing is a value when it supports that person’s life, and a thing is a disvalue if it harms that person’s life.

Now you’re probably thinking, so doesn’t this prove that value are subjective in that it is dependent on the subject? For example, a large piece of cheesecake may be a value to a healthy 20 years old subject, but a disvalue to a 60 years old with diabetes subject.

I say no because this is not what the term subjective means when use in conjunction with the term objective. Subjective means independent of facts (i.e., to go by feelings) and objective means dependent on facts.

Now, if you were to ask, “So who, other than the subject determines whether something is an value to that subject or not?” I would respond with, anybody with access to the facts could make that determination. For example, it’s not hard for me to draw the conclusion that the crack Mr. X is taking is a disvalue to him even if Mr. X disagrees and feels like it is a value because it serves the purpose of helping him evade some sort of psychological pain. If I were to use a more ambiguous example of marijuana, I would say that it’s harder for me to draw this conclusion about Mr. Y usage of it since I don’t know if he’s using it to evade some sort of psychological pain (which would make it a disvalue since it delays the requirement for him to address that pain) or if he’s using it to numb physical pain to which he has no other way to deal with.

So as you can see, I agree with you that value requires a valuer; but to be objective it also requires facts too.

I can give you an example that sometimes happens to me that makes me thinking just like that. Like "who decided that the word <spoon> represents an object that allows you to take objects into your mouth?? Why not <priche>, <glast> or anything else"?? Note: those sets of chars are only that. Sets of chars that I put together randomly! No idea if there are words like that!

So, when you say that something has value, maybe it gets real value if more people agree with that! Someone decided, and others agreed that <spoon> could be a set of chars to represent the object that allows you to carry objects into your mouth. I know that words has their own etymology, but I think you get the point.

First, I want to distinguish concepts from words. Concept are the ideas in your head. Words are the perceptual reference to those concepts. Words are like pointers to concepts.

As you’ve observed, different culture uses different languages which have different words pointing to the same concept. So the concept of “spoon” may have different words in German vs. English but they both refer to the same concept. That is, similar objects (but not identical) arises in the recipient’s mind when you say the word “spoon” or its equivalent in German (to a German language person).

Now I agree with you that it doesn’t matter what the words are. That is, it doesn’t matter if the English person calls the concept of spoon “spoon” or “price” or “glast” unless they want to communicate with another English speaker. At that point, it does matter that there is agreement between the two individual that the word “spoon” refers to the same concept.

Now, that may mean that the words, for the purposes of communication, are necessarily subjective; but it doesn’t mean that the concepts themselves are.

For example, I may “feel” like the concept of “glast” should refer to both things that can be used to scoop soup as well as things that can be used to cut meat. But that would be an invalid concept because it is tying things together by their non-essential. That is, spoons are used for specific type of tasks. Even if no two spoons are identical, they all can be used for the same tasks. Knives, however, are used for very different tasks. To combine these two category of things together under the same concept would make the concept useless and therefore invalid.

Now, some person may claim that, based on their feelings, the term “glast” should refer to both spoon-objects and knives-objects. And they would suffer the consequences for creating and using invalid concepts by ignoring the fact of reality that these are two very different objects.

[tadamichi]

To answer your question of, “What value would any good have if we didn’t exist?” The answer is: No value.

I wrote in a response to another person that value requires the existence of a value. More specifically, a thing is a value when it supports that person’s life, and a thing is a disvalue if it harms that person’s life.

It’s funny that you talk about things needing facts too, but then keep bending concepts however they fit your narrative.

Now you’re probably thinking, so doesn’t this prove that value are subjective in that it is dependent on the subject? For example, a large piece of cheesecake may be a value to a healthy 20 years old subject, but a disvalue to a 60 years old with diabetes subject.

I say no because this is not what the term subjective means when use in conjunction with the term objective. Subjective means independent of facts (i.e., to go by feelings) and objective means dependent on facts.

Now im thinking that you’re not even looking at concepts but brainstorming bs to fit ur bias.

The subjective theory of value means that, the value of something lies in how much an individual values and desires it himself, this is subjective and can change. This can include facts, but it’s decided on an individual basis. And like we’re seeing your interpretation of facts can be different from anyone else, so this can be subjective again. Humans are highly subjective beings, there’s people who think the earth is flat and everyone around them is dumb, they think it’s facts too. No matter if you present actual facts or not.

Its not so much the inherent properties of things themselves, even tho this can influence it. We even see that information(„facts“) is valued differently on an individual basis. It would just be foolish to deny that you prefer other things than me. The concept of demand was derived from this, do you deny this one too?

Your viewpoint is also human centric its foolish for any human to claim superior objectivity, give a dog a gold coin and see how much he values it. To us gold might seem valuable, but if an alien watched us from above he would probably think wtf is going on here. Were letting kids/ poor people extract it for us in poor countries and they get nothing from it, were destroying entire liveable habitats for this thing and were even killing/ starting wars with other humans for some metal or paper that has no significant inherent value, all of this might not indicate that this species needs objectivity for anything.

Now, if you were to ask, “So who, other than the subject determines whether something is an value to that subject or not?” I would respond with, anybody with access to the facts could make that determination.

Humans
Arent
Fuckin
Rational
(You’re a good example, because you think force gave fiat it’s value and a voluntarily adopted currency like Bitcoin is worthless) Your whole thought process is shouting subjectivity.

If they want something they’ll do it, they can value something even in absence of facts or benefit. The tobacco industry is making 1 trillion every year without helping anyone, people know it’s bad for them, there’s literally pictures of sick people on the cover, and despite the presence of facts, people spend more on a pack of cigarettes than on a pack of water. How can you explain it, without needing subjectivity? Subjectivity doesn’t exclude objectivity, but this choice lies in the individual, they choose and desire however the f they want.

To me it seems like youre not even choosing reality as any reference point to check ur ideas, you just have this idea that everyone around you is wrong about Bitcoin and you gotta prove it, instead of maybe trying to understand it.

[nullama]

If you're asking this question in 2022, then it means that you haven't researched about Bitcoin at all.

[tygeade]

Of course it does.

1 Bitcoin is approximately worth 20 thousand US dollars which is enough to buy a decent used car everywhere in the world. Whether you say it has value or not has no meaning. The world isn't spinning around you. Maybe bitcoin is worthless to you, that's fine. Lots of other people think that way too but on the other hand, lots people people think its worth $20k right now.

The US dollar has value too. No matter how crappy it is getting, people still use it.

People are saying that the price and the value are different things, that's the issue. I mean I think they are the same thing and if people think it is not then it's their problem. But, what you are talking about is the price, so when they come here again, they will say that 20k is the price, and not the value.

I believe if we were to say the value is different, I would put the value a lot higher, in my mind bitcoin WILL be 100k+ for sure and there is no doubt about that at all. This is why we should try to focus on what we can do and not what we can't control and since I know it will go up, I just buy as much as I can and patiently wait for it to go up.

[reasonspace]

(You’re a good example, because you think force gave fiat it’s value and a voluntarily adopted currency like Bitcoin is worthless)

You don't have to agree with me. If you hold the subjective theory of value as being legitimate, then you are wrong for claiming that fiat has no value since you are going against the fact that most people (including you if you're still working and paying taxes) are treating fiat as if it has value. Your own use of fiat as if it has value refutes your claim that it has no value.

Humans
Arent
Fuckin
Rational

Humans has the capacity to be rational. It's a choice in terms of whether they want to be or not.

However, if you take the metaphysical position that human can't be rational, then I can see why you reject the epistemological concept of objectivity and its ethical derivative of objective values.