This right there is exactly why long term it's doomed and cannot be a reliable store of value. You don't see banks and random geeks inventing new precious metals out of thin air. So you have gold, silver, platinum and palladium and that's about it as far as store of values are concerned.
I mean, I suppose anyone can create a currency out of thin air. In fact, I'd wager there's hundreds of currencies, as nearly every sovereign state has one. It's not meant to be a store of value, which is why this bubble will burst, but that doesn't mean it's doomed. It has the characteristics of a currency: 1. scarce. 2. useful.
But not 3. fast and easy to transfer ownership of or 4. stable in value over time. Plenty of things (houses, human toes, pre-release copies of films, etc.) Are both scarce and useful without also being good candidates for a medium of exchange.
Fair enough, but Bitcoin certainly can be either of those things, even if it's not right now. History shows us any currency can have those problems. Inflation can become so high that as a medium of exchange it's pointless. It can become so unstable in value that people use something else.
Bitcoin is no panacea, but the "fake money" argument seems misplaced to me. It's current failings are not failings of crypto-currency in general.
Paying for a $5 cup of coffee with a debt card takes about 10 seconds and invites about $0.10 in transaction fees. Paying in physical currency is even faster and costs approximately $0.
I've heard plenty of ideas to make the Bitcoin network a little cheaper or a little faster. Occasionally both! I've yet to hear a good theory for how the Bitcoin network can ever get both 500x cheaper and 500x faster.
Same is true about Facebook. Someone could clone the features and create facebook2.com, and everyone would flock to it. That's why Facebook stock is a Ponzi scheme. Anyone who thinks Facebook has a value above $0 is insane.
Look, i'm not convinced that bitcoin is worth the price it's at right even right now either, but that's just not true.
The network effect is extremely strong in the cryptocurrency space. Everything in the cryptocurrency space supports bitcoin, and fractions of everything support anything else. Payment processors, exchanges, hardware wallets, software wallets, secure storage and backup systems, etc... All of it is focused on bitcoin first, and adds others later (if ever).
If you want to buy or sell bitcoin, you've got tons of repudible options, you want to buy or sell monero? You've got 1/3 of the options, and most of them are small and shady or don't deal with fiat currencies in any way.
If that's not a network effect, I don't know what is.
One could argue the exact opposite - that all the infrastructure around Bitcoin makes it an inferior store of value. For example, the fact that Litecoin does not (yet) have ETFs and other financial vehicles that can be used to manipulate its price without actually dealing with "physical" Litecoins, makes it a more stable store of value.
It took a while for 28.8K modems to catch up with bandwidth needs, and that's part of the reason people thought the internet sucked and was a joke compared to all its promises. I think even today people snort about pets.com as the poster child of the dot-com boom. Then their Amazon Pantry order arrives, which they consume without irony.
You could say that about any company that doesn't have crucial IP. It doesn't seem like you understand the value of a brand.
>Someone could clone the features and create facebook2.com, and everyone would flock to it.
This is flat out false. if it was actually that easy don't you think we would have seen it happen already? There are numerous social media platforms that have tried to dethrone Facebook and none of them have succeeded.
in addition, Facebook practically prints money through advertising, which very clearly has value (multiple billions of dollars a year).
I don't really use Facebook anymore and I don't work there but to think it's value is $0 is insane. I'm not sure how you can conflate a multi-billion dollar company with proven profit streams and the current hype in the current crypto market
Perhaps you would have benefited from an explicit /s in this conversation. We're in agreement. I was taking OP's point and extending it to demonstrate its weakness.
A little. It is somewhat like Bitcoin Cash, which I'll admit surprised me by not dying immediately. The way I reconciled it with my view of the world is that it's a different feature set (larger ledger pages) that was too hard to integrate with the main product (Bitcoin), so they did a market test with a different brand and found out it resonated with some people. ("they" is an odd term to use because it was actually two viciously opposed groups, but the same kind of infighting happens in corporations as well, and people on the outside think corporations are all singular hive minds, so oh well).
I continue to view Bitcoin Cash as a prototype for different features that validates the need for Bitcoin to address that market segment, either by fixing the block size problem outright, or by the lightning network. I don't see a world where both BTC and BCH coexist long-term.
I can't explain why Instagram coexists with Facebook. It does feel like one is a superset of the other. Maybe Instagram's simplicity and ease of use is simply inconsistent with Facebook's engulfing experience, and they truly are two distinct features of a larger whole. If that's the case, then I'm looking at BTC/BCH the wrong way, and they're also part of a larger whole, and both will survive. So my original facetious point that Facebook is cloneable (which of course it isn't, because its value is in network effects, not its source code) would actually be somewhat true, except that it's different products serving the same overall network, just overlapping but distinct parts of it.
I doubt it's that easy to gain consensus on that. Half a decade of billion-dollar incentives have already provided a real-life experiment in which this issue didn't come up, although it may in the future.
The reasons are that bitcoin's value is derived from its scarcity and decentralised properties. If you completely break that philosophy, it's sorta-kinda just a digital ledger controlled by a small group of powerful companies like any other system you could think of.
So you'd momentarily print money that'd soon lose much of its value. And you'd be doing it on specialised mining equipment which are purpose-built by all the big mining companies, that can just has a single algorithm that bitcoin uses (and is useless for mining many other coins), which then also all lose their value.
Again, it could happen, but the incentive structure certainly isn't designed for this to occur naturally. Even a small printing of money would be immediately noticed.
Rather, the rarity to me stems from the fact that indeed, anyone can run a blockchain. It's just software on 1 or more computers. I can run 100 blockchain clones on my computer with trillions of tokens. And bitcoin tokens themselves can be split to ridiculous numbers, as you can send 0.000001 bitcoin. That fraction of a bitocin is a token that can carry information and put it on the blockchain, and you can agree that this information represents any asset. As such, there's no scarcity of databases (blockchains) or tokens (bitcoin fractions), and thereby it isn't 'rare'. Of course, most blockchains have no security strength because there's not enough value to incentivise a large group of independent miners like with bitcoin. But the idea that you can clone/improve bitcoin, run your own and create a healthy market is reality, and it means that ultimately there's no real rarity for bitcoin usecases that couldn't happen on another chain that's supported by users.
You know what? That's a good point, and a problem with the Bitcoin end game. As Bitcoin mining gets harder and more of the value ends up entirely in the already-mined BTC, those with all this mining infrastructure are going to realize they can maximize this otherwise-stranded-asset by monopolizing mining power and developing a consensus to allow them to continue printing money.
"But transaction fees!"
Okay, but if transaction fees go way up, that will encourage people to move away from BTC anyway or find some other way to reduce their exposure to transaction fees.
Once mining draws to a close, miners will consolidate. Just like in every other industry after a bust.
Cryptocurrencies are still, of course, very interesting and powerful.
My expectation is we'll end up with "to avoid a hard cliff between a network reliant on mining and one reliant on transaction fees (and the inevitable instability of the transition), and to ensure a robust mining ecosystem, we're going to extend mining, at a reduced rate, for just a few more months..."
And there's an apparent benefit for end-users, too - if you want Bitcoin to be a practical payments mechanism (as opposed to store of value), transaction fees have to be kept comparable to credit cards. But the electricity used by the network still has to be paid for. What could be more tempting than magicing a few more bitcoin out of thin air to pay the miners?
The algorithm is just a convention. The algorithm can be easily forked or modified by law / regulation / consensus among a few key market participants (mostly large miners).
Also Bitcoin is just one blockchain. Even with the same algorithm I can create an infinity of other bitcoin blockchains. Why would one have more value than the others? It's like if you generated an RSA key and then said, this RSA key is special, it has lots of value, you can't replicate it because you don't have the private key. No one else can recreate this key, it is enforced by cryptography. Well yes. But it's just a key. I can create a million others with an average laptop.
And I could make thousands of kinds of physical coins next month, it doesn't mean physical money is worth less...
I feel like I'm crazy here, how is the ability to make a new "thing" make something else less valuable? A toyota isn't worth less because I can make a new car company next week, Facebook isn't worth less because I could make a clone of it tomorrow, A company stock shouldn't be consitered "worthless" just because I can create a new company tomorrow...
What am I missing? Why would the ability to make something new affect the rarity of an unrelated "thing"? Why isn't the value determined by what that "thing" does, how it does it, the number of people that believe in it's ability to do the thing it says it will do, and more? Why do you think it matters that someone can create a new currency?
There are two kinds of rarity. There is rarity of the thing itself and rarity of things like the thing. Consider an extremely rare thing used for some industrial application. It is very expensive because there is little supply. But if there is another thing that functions just as well then the price of the first thing drops, even though the supply of that thing is fixed.
The only differences between bitcoin and bitcoin2 after a fork are the miners. If the number of miners is sufficiently large to be confident in transactions, original bitcoins and bitcoin2s are just as good at being used for whatever. This is even worse if bitcoin2 has some new desirable properties that bitcoin does not have.
I agree to some point. You can't forget the network effect, which in many cases is the most important factor (it's easy to make a clone of twitter, but good luck getting everyone to switch). Because Bitcoin is basically just a way to ensure that a group of people are doing math with a given set of rules, if you get a copy with slightly different rules, you need that group to agree to them to give it value. It doesn't really have many analogies in the physical world that I can think of, the closest is actual physical currencies.
Just because I can make a "Flollar" doesn't mean that it's going to take a bite out of USD. I have nothing to backup my flollar, no users, no army, nothing. It's the same way with cryptocurrencies. Just because you can fork bitcoin doesn't mean you'll take a chunk of it's value. You still need to provide all of the other things that make bitcoin valuable that's not in the codebase (decentralization, userbase, vendors/exchanges, software that works with it, time with real usage to show that it's secure (or at least that your changes are secure), and just trust that it will stand the test of time). And even if you do that, bitcoin can and will evolve over time. If you start to eat bitcoin's lunch, there is no reason why they can't just fold your changes into bitcoin proper. If it's in everyone's best interest to have the feature, then consensus will be easy to achieve and the network can be upgraded. In a way, it's similar to forks of an open source project. In the vast majority of cases, a fork of a codebase doesn't reduce the number of users of a project. In some cases it does, but it normally doesn't happen overnight, and takes years and years to have people transition over (take openoffice vs libreoffice for example).
All that being said, I do think that bitcoin is in a bad place right now, and they are dangerously close to allowing another currency to jump up as the main contender, but I don't believe that any of the top 10 or so have actually solved the scaling problem that bitcoin currently has without getting rid of the biggest benefits of a cryptocurrency.
> And I could make thousands of kinds of physical coins next month
No, you couldn't, not without literally tons of raw material, heavy machinery and infrastructure to mint the coins, laborers to run the operation, time to process the raw materials, and a practical mechanism to circulate the coins. These are serious barriers to the creation of physical money, unlike cryptocurrency which can be instantly and effortlessly minted in unlimited quantities by a single individual and easily distributed over the internet. There is no comparison.
> A toyota isn't worth less because I can make a new car company next week
This analogy makes no sense. A Toyota is valuable because it has an inherent utility in its ability to provide its owner with an effective method of transportation, crypo-tokens (as opposed to the network itself) have no inherent utility because they are not actually a thing and do not exist independently of the ledger that qualifies their distribution. Certainly, if any single individual could generate an unlimited supply of "effective transportation" instantly at near zero cost, the value of toyota's would very quickly decline.
> Facebook isn't worth less because I could make a clone of it tomorrow
First of all, no you couldn't. You could create a much crappier version of Facebook with an unmaintainable code-base that doesn't scale and supports a minuscule fraction of Facebook's feature set, and even that would cost you time, money, and effort. Even if you could just git clone Facebook's code, you still wouldn't be able to get it running and keep it running without a team of senior dev, ops, and network engineers, plus an annual server bill in the hundreds of thousands at the absolute minimum.
> A company stock shouldn't be consitered "worthless" just because I can create a new company tomorrow...
The point is that you can't just "create a new company" tomorrow that is in any way comparable to a successful business, otherwise everyone would do it... not to say that some don't try, but the ash heap of history is littered with the remains of companies that thought they could replicate a successful company's business model only to find out that its actually not that simple.
>The point is that you can't just "create a new company" tomorrow that is in any way comparable to a successful business
That's my point exactly! Just because you can replicate the "class" of thing, doesn't mean you can replicate the thing...
Just like how a company stock isn't just a piece of paper that anyone can photocopy, a cryptocurrency isn't just the code that runs it. It's the users, the track record of security, the amount of vendors and exchanges that use it, the amount of centralization/decentralization to it's development team, the amount and maturity of implementations of the software, and any number of other intangible things.
Simply making a new cryptocurrency is exactly the same as making a new company, or a new facebook, or a new toyota, or a new anything. It doesn't make you a direct competitor any more than my "klathmonbook.com" is a direct competitor to facebook just because I replicated some (or even all) of the functionality.
>the ash heap of history is littered with the remains of companies that thought they could replicate a successful company's business model only to find out that its actually not that simple.
So is the pile of scamcoins and poorly thought out implementations that have already collapsed within months of their creation. Give the space some more time, and I bet you'll see a lot more of them fail, because just like how creating a company isn't just clicking a button, creating a successful cryptocurrency isn't a simple thing either. But I still don't think that it means that all cryptocurrencies are worthless because anyone can enter the space.