wachtwoord

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.

That's because what you see as "amongst each other" in reality isn't at all. Most things marketed as "crypto" are just scams, lying to get a place in the sun. Eg equating Bitcoin with Ethereum is the same as saying Amazon and pets.com are the same thing.

See that is a valid critique! If the limited issuance won't hold there is no value. This is where the distributed nature comes in however. I suggest you read up on 'the block size wars' from the second half of 2017. Some of the most powerful actors in the space (giant mining operations, some ex-developers of the main client who were well known in the space, some successful entrepreneurs in the space) colluded for months while investing considerable resources in an attempt to change the code to their personal benefit but to the detriment of Bitcoin (increasing the block size, which they marketed as a positive thing but of course isn't as it'll lead in greater centralization, basically as bad as increasing the total issuance). They went as far as to vote with the majority mining power, showing they had a majority in that behind them. STILL they couldn't do it as normal users set up a client that would fork of sticking to the old rules and the miners couldn't risk losing revenue with the risk of being stuck on a dead and abandoned chain so they folded. To contrast, compare it to the extremely centralized Ethereum where Vitalik single handedly decides what goes. Rewriting history as he pleased in the past (the DAO fiasco) all the way to this year abandoning any resemblance of decentralization this year by abandoning proof of work for proof of stake this year. With that, it's not even a cryptocurrency anymore.

The best piece on valuation is still: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/john-pfeffer/An+Investor's+Take+on+Cryptoassets+v6.pdf Which I shared here in 2017! The point I continue to make! Search and you will find. You are simply being lazy or just want to echo chamber to yourself what you already believe. Why do you need a public board for that?

Are we comparing credentials? I have all the same as you plus a PhD does that matter to you? It doesn't to you. You didn't find the use case while the main one, and the only one needed, is plain to see since the start: a store of value better than any that ever existed before (cause of the benefits over #2 gold). Again: this is not rocket science. There you got me responding again

Old "news"? This is about what is and what isn't. Or do you also reject valid mathematic concepts simply because they were discovered over 2000 years ago? The article you posted certainly isn't better.

I shared an article which did.

It's you who doesn't know what a store of value is. I'll stop responding now.

Again: this has all been discussed over 8 years ago and nothing changed so I suggest you go read it if you truly want to know (I doubt it). You can also read the article I posted above but you could have easily found this in old posts on this very forum. My comment here today was just me lamenting. I don't think there's much to add on the subject. Especially not at the level this discussion is stuck at. What rkababang and the others are doing is a Sisyphean Task. Merry Christmas!