tooskinneejs

But yet you do. Some things are sticky. Very sticky. What convinces you that people are going to go from the current, easy, frictionless system to a more burdensome system?

Digital currency is indeed the future and it has also been the past for several decades. And that digital currency is cash itself, which has been able to be exchanged digitally for a long time and continues to be exchanged in ever growing amounts. We simply have no need to take an electronically exchangeable currency (cash), convert it to a 'virtual' electronically exchangeable currency (bitcoin et al.), exchange that 'virtual' currency, and then reconvert that 'virtual' currency back to the original electronically exchangeable currency (cash).

Free speech, as others have noted. But also freedom of how to spend your money if nearly 50% is taken off the top.

Trading freedom for security essentially. And I'm saying this without judgment.

Please let me know when someone convinces another on a political issue on this board. I won't hold my breath as I don't expect this to happen in the next decade or more. But hey, at least the political chatter clogs up the board and distracts from a focus on investing.

That may be exactly the point being made. It's value is based entirely on perception with no underlying intrinsic value.

If everyone stopped believing in Google as an investment, its price would drop (for some time) but its intrinsic value would not because it would continue to generate cash flows. The problem with BTC is that its "value" has nothing underlying it. It's price is based on nothing except belief that it has value. In other words, it's "value" is entirely extrinsic. Similar to buying an artwork that is highly desirable, you may make money upon selling but it wasn't because the art had intrinsic value was because someone else believed it had value (extrinsic).

But isn't this only because people have generally believed in it over time? If tomorrow everyone stopped believing in the value of bitcoin, wouldn't its price drop? The only thing giving it "value" is extrinsic belief. As to your water example, maybe it would be more appropriate to have used a cup of virtual water rather than real water.

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion from my explanation of its purported value: "I think an accurate evaluation of Bitcoin is that there is no intrinsic value but there is an extrinsic value based entirely on belief." There have now been three different answers to the question of value: 1. Ownership of bitcoin gives you ownership of the network - This is demonstrably false. 2. Its akin to owning a screw after screws were first invented (i.e., a useful tool) - I'm not sure that anyone got rich off owning screws in the early days. Making them, maybe. Owning them, doubtful. 3. Its like owning a fraction of a highly desired piece of art - I think this is the most accurate analogy and it corresponds to the premise noted in my quote above regarding the basis for its value - 100% extrinsic value. One thing is interesting for sure, there seems to be a wide disparity of views as to why people believe it has value.

I was referring to this... "...much of it filled with people convincing themselves of value when none existed...I watched Sears unfold and I've watched this unfold. I'm not sure the situations are that different."

192 pages is nothing. There were 371 pages on Sears, much of it filled with people convincing themselves of value when none existed. I don't post much, but have been around for a long time. I watched Sears unfold and I've watched this unfold. I'm not sure the situations are that different. I think an accurate evaluation of Bitcoin is that there is no intrinsic value but there is an extrinsic value based entirely on belief. As to the original Q&A between us, there is no value from the network because holders of this virtual currency have no ownership interest in the network. There will doubtless be many people who make money from speculating in Bitcoin, but it won't be because of true intrinsic value, it will only be because someone else believes the story more than them. Thanks for your time and good luck.

So simple it can't be explained.

Owning Meta gives you ownership of a fractional interest in their social media networks and the networks generates cash flow from advertising. Owning BTC gives you no ownership of the network and the network itself generates no cash flow. Saying that owning BTC gives you ownership of "the network" is like saying having funds in a DraftKings account gives you ownership of their network. In either case, you have funds in an account but they don't convey ownership in the network. Please tell me how I am wrong.

Bitcoin is a virtual currency. Owning it gives you no ownership of the network of computers on which transactions are recorded. You asserted the currency's value was based on fractional ownership of the network. So if we discard the intrinsic value assigned to the network because ownership of the currency provides no ownership of the network, what is the intrinsic value of the virtual currency itself?

How is ownership of the network evidenced?