wachtwoord

Why are you talking about cryptocurrencies? I was talking about Bitcoin: the only valuable one. Crypto isn't just a payment system. Quite the opposite: an elementary payment system is slapped on top for convenience but has nothing to do with crypto. Bitcoin isn't intended to replace fiat currencies (and if people habe that intention they'll be disappointed). It will significantly reduce their importance though.

And what makes you think that makes you the earliest of the in this thread?

It think it is ironic yes but in the long run irrelevant. Perhaps the inventor (I prefer that over creator as many people contributed to its creation) was incorrect on one metric and perhaps he used this as a clever trick to increase early adoption (easier to understand for people and more attractive to "greed") which was the most vital time in it's existence, bit does it really matter? I'm not a Satoshi worshipper, just like I don't worship any other inventor. I do highly respect the innovation he did create though.

Hard asset has utility value directly in and of itself (intrinsic value). Fiat currency does not have this and cannot have this by definition. Bitcoin does have it as there's not another good in the world that you have as much (permissionless) control over and which is as hard to seize (factually not legally). Gold has it too but much less good than Bitcoin: it's easier to seize, harder to authenticate, easier to block, harder to store, slower and harder to move and harder to divide. Plus it's supply is much less sure.

Everyone, pro or contra Bitcoin, who believes Bitcoin is primarily a currency, are wrong yes. There is no currency centric innovation there. Therefore if you analyse it as a currency of course you're not impressed. Also: Bitcoin's implicit payment system is purposefully simplistic in nature and will remain so. Again not the innovation. Other solutions can be used for payments, be it on another layer (lightning) or just an old fashioned payment method denoted in another nominal unit where you first swap your a Bitcoin into. Efficient payment is only a relevant feature for the liquid part of your wealth.

Lol what? Only people that don't understand Bitcoin even think it is a currency. Ofcourse it won't replace fiat currencies. It's primarily a store of value (the greatest one by miles and miles). Again: I'm surprised and disappointed an otherwise highly intelligent man speaks in such confidence about something which his statements show he hasn't understood much of. "It Ain’t What You Don’t Know That Gets You Into Trouble. It’s What You Know for Sure That Just Ain’t So" - Mark Twain I hope when I check here in a few years more have understood what it is this topic is about.

What makes you say this? I'd wager a lot this isn't true.

Completely this. I let it rest for a few years, checked up here and frankly it didn't improve. There's one person who doesn't understand what the generic meaning of intrinsic value is and gets stuck in a context specific one based on specific assumptions. Meanwhile Parsad comes in, someone with outside of this topic usually well argued points of view, and he says Bitcoin has no utilitarian value. NONE. He doesn't say he doesn't know but instead he makes a completely nonsensical statement that he seems awfully certain of. There's just no point discussing it here. Maybe in a northern 5 years? 10? We'll see I guess.

Never mind

I don't think you are lying particularly to me or the others in this thread. I (and we) are not special. I simply can't believe you are being truthful with yourself because of the extreme irrationality of your argumentation combined with the fact you are very likely at least moderately intelligent. That's why I tried asking you to look at everything honestly (to yourself) once more. Just look at the logical fallacies you're using as arguments. Does that correspond to your reasoning with respect to other topics? I doubt it.

Not true in the general case. Thus far in this specific case very true. Not because it's a priori determined to be so but because that's the content you and others with you bring to the table. Look honestly to the content you brought. Perhaps also look at rkbabang's apt comparison above. If after that you still consider what you and Value brought to the table valid arguments my only response to that would be: "Wow ".

No, not in the slightest. Just when such "critism" is entirely made of non sequitors, ad auctoritatem, ad hominems and other logical fallacies as they hold zero merit. Good luck with the mental gymnastics!

What arguments? The title by itself already is internally inconsistent. Balance views is great but eg if my arguments against gold would be "people is smelly" would that be a view you would take seriously? Your article is on that same level. But why I challenge you cause when I called you out on the logical manure of the article you shared your reply was "I don't know I didn't post it" then why share it? If no reason it's just spam.

No it's not. It' a terrible article! Not because of the source but because of the content. The title could have told you that already. Funny how you speak of personal attack (ad hominem) while the only reason you share this piece of trash Larping as a serious article is ad ad auctoritatem ("leading science site").

Yes I wouldn't trust any exchange that issues its own (scam tokens out of thin air. Also: the more non-BTC things they list, the more likely to go bust. Same thing with offering more leverage.

But you did cite the poorly written article here for some reason? The guy who was stolen from os one of the stronger defenders of the immutability of the blockchain btw. Fought hard against the blocksize increase at the end of 2017 and won via by uniting the users via UASF. Overall he's a strange guy though, eg anti-papal catholic, pro-monarchy (the old style) etc, but he holds true to his convictions.

Nice way to put it

Why have a strong opinion about something you clearly have no clue what it is? That's been my question since the start.

Bitcoin is the thing itself. It's like saying a gold bar has no IV because it does not constitute a claim on something else. A bond is a claim on something with no IV.

Bonds produce nothing. Bitcoin doesn't produce anything either, but Bitcoin IS something. Now you don't read what you write yourself anymore I even quoted you saying it. Let's see whether this time I succeed in not responding to you further

Lol what. YOU think intrinsic value is market value. You're the one that believes USD has intrinsic value because the market currently attributes purchasing power to it. I say it does not because it has no properties giving it intrinsic value. Bitcoin (and gold before economically viable asteroid mining) does have properties that give it intrinsic value. The market price has nothing to do with it.

Besides you having everything backwards I really wonder what you are doing in this topic. What goal does it have? I wondered the same in the Altius Minerals for some people back in the day. Bonds don't produce anything by definition btw. It's hard to be as wrong on so many things as you are.

Indeed the right question. And the answer is that it will encompass value for a long time since it's properties are inherently useful to humans as long as societal structure resembles anything history has ever seen and there is no enourmous technological collapse. Two relatively safe assumptions (what other idea on this board does not require both of these to hold true for quite a while?). Intrinsic value means exactly this: that the inherent characteristics of something provide value for humans in the general non-transitive sense.

Once again you fail at reading. I wrote it has no intrinsic value. Of course has purchasing power today. Btw so does Bitcoin Forest and the trees.

indeed US bonds have no intrinsic value as they are denoted in USD and USD has no intrinsic value (infinite USD can be printed so the intrinsic value approaches zero) Note this is different for equities as they are not bound to earnings in one particular currency now or in the future.