|
|
|
|
|
|
by jimmygatz
3119 days ago
|
|
|
I hear this argument a lot and I'm never really sure what is meant by "intrinsic value"? Why do you think bitcoins have zero intrinsic value but tulips and weimar republic bills do? Bitcoin has many uses, but for the sake of argument let's take its often stated use of acting as digital gold. If gold is "intrinsically valuable" which I presume you think it is, then so is bitcoin. Gold is valuable because it is a good store of value due to its properties of being scarce, long-lasting, easily divisible, transportable, etc. Bitcoin is all these things too and in fact is a much better store of value than gold. I see no reason, other than "brand", why gold should be "intrinsically valuable" but bitcoin not. Btw, gold is a 3-6trillion dollar market depending on how you do the accounting (https://schiffgold.com/commentaries/just-how-big-is-the-gold...). |
|
|
Gold has been used for various things since it was discovered. It's an essential component in many electronics, and if nothing else, it looks nice.
> Bitcoin is all these things too and in fact is a much better store of value than gold.
Bitcoin is none of those things. The moment the Bitcoin network collapses you have nothing but a bunch of random numbers, all of which are absolutely worthless.
Bitcoin has been around less than ten years. Gold has been around for billions. You've got a long way to go to prove Bitcoin can be as durable as gold, which given it's an atomic element, is probably impossible.
I'm not saying that gold is the best store of value, but it's a hell of a lot better than Bitcoin.