73 Reds

Thanks for the nice explanation, Viking. Perhaps someone will convince Warren or future management to do the same for BRK.

Nah, I think BTC is simply misunderstood. On a value-oriented forum like this, proponents should expect a lot of pushback. I don't think even the staunchest supporters really can predict its future. To me the issue is all about the price you pay and why the price is reasonable at any given level. Valuation seems to be based mostly on belief, not unlike politics and religion to your point. There are those proponents who tell you as one example that you will be poor for not buying BTC, which type of comment doesn't even warrant a reply. But I've found most proponents' views interesting and helpful in my (thus far) understanding of BTC.

And curiously those endings never announce themselves in advance yet are always so evident in hindsight.

Gold can be lost or stolen. You pay to store it and it has little to no utility. Not my idea of a store of value. In the U.S. I absolutely own RE. There is a legal process for government takings in the US and owners are compensated. Elsewhere gold can be confiscated and its portability therefore works against it to your very point. Never heard of equities being seized or stolen - you'll have to explain that one and why it wouldn't be just as easy to seize or steal gold, if not easier.

Well, in that sense I'm not sure what you mean by "store of value". I'd argue real estate trumps (sorry) gold by miles. Equities, for as long as they've been in existence. Just about anything that generates a return. If you've owned gold for (pick a time period) what do you have to show for it? And I own gold [coins] but for reasons entirely unrelated to a store of value.

How will cash flow ever exist for BTC? Its not that DCF is the only way to measure value. In fact, how many folks can accurately value anything using DCF? For stocks like Berkshire or AAPL, future cash flows are highly unknowable because much of the future business activity of these companies is yet unknown. Seems as if these stocks are bought not for the present but for what incredible brainpower can generate in the future. Yet unlike BTC, that only requires a leap of faith on an already known success story. Likewise, there are plenty of assets that can be valued by means other than DCF. Take collectibles as one example. Scarcity, uniqueness, historical perspective, beauty, appeal of the creator, appeal of the subject, to name a few. Not sure how BTC possesses any of those qualities but the topic is now of interest to me and this forum has provided lots of material for future reading.

Figuring out the value of the whole network, leaving subjectivity aside is indeed the tough part. The problem (for me at least) is subjectivity has generally been effective.

TY @rkbabang

Not here questioning your winnings! But Wall Street and the financial industry has never shied away from promoting anything that will put money in their pockets.

Re. Metcalf's Law I am left with some initial questions: The article starts out by comparing BTC to an Italian network of telephone tokens. This seems much like today's forever stamps where people hoard them on the basis of anticipated price increases. Yet the phone tokens and stamp prices rise gradually, in contrast to the price of BTC. How can this be reconciled in terms of coming up with a fair price? The article uses Facebook as a further analogy. Facebook, as an entity clearly has value that can be measured in any number of traditional ways. I can [almost] see where BTC as a network can also be valued based on the cumulative value to users of its convenience, etc... But what I can't decipher is how each wallet or coin can be valued, at least in a monetization sense, other than via bid/ask based on ??? Logically the value is not simply a proportional value of the network as a whole because the network is not a static, cost free endeavor. The article asks (rhetorically) where value is created for traditional currencies. What I think it neglects to acknowledge is that the US dollar is effectively a legal contract between the US government and the holder of the note for the nominal value of the currency. The article goes on to say that the model is based solely on supply and demand. The author seems to take a leap of faith by stating "we expect deviations to occur but significant deviations should be subject to scrutiny". Why? The author does acknowledge that the price has been, and can be manipulated. Doesn't this defeat one of the main purposes/advantages of BTC? I'm sure when I re-read the article more questions will surface. The article is fascinating and leaves me with more questions than before (that's a good thing!). I intend to read the other authorities you and others have provided. Thanks again.

Since BTC can be "lost" how can we know for sure that the supply will always be limited?

Curious that the opening paragraph in Peterson's "Metcalf's Law for Bitcoin" states that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. On the other thread proponents lambasted BTC skeptics for making the same suggestion.

@Jfan much appreciated. Lots of reading ahead.

Thank you @TwoCitiesCapital. Look forward to learning more.

Who suggested that valuation need be in the form of DCF? Your answer if I recall correctly was a comparison to gold. Gold has been a TERRIBLE (emphasis added) investment over time.