[noncoml]

Bitcoin looks like a ponzi scheme to me as there is no value to a Bitcoin other than that of itself.

Currencies used to represent the gold stored by each government. These days currency represent the trust that the system that uses the currency, will trade goods for it. However we had to go through the gold equivalent to get here.

Bitcoin doesn’t represent anything and has nothing to back it up.

[proofofanalysis]

Bitcoin's value is connected to the costs to continuously mine it and consequently keep the blockchain intact and secure.

These costs include electricity, mining equipment, personnel, and warehousing.

As with normal equity valuation, these costs would be transparent, allowing for valuation to take place.

Since Bitcoin is decentralized and its "employees", or miners, are disparate; costs are not known.

This information asymmetry is one cause of Bitcoin's unbounded price discovery.

[imtringued]

>Bitcoin's value is connected to the costs to continuously mine it and consequently keep the blockchain intact and secure.

That's wrong. Bitcoin isn't worth $X because miners are expending $X resources to obtain it. Miners are expending $X because people are buying bitcoin for $X.

Imagine a lottery where the reward is an ounce of gold which is worth $1200. A ticket costs $10. There is a guaranteed winner at the end of the lottery. When the lottery ends a random ticket will be selected and the owner gets the gold. Buying more tickets increases your chance of winning. Therefore participants will try to buy slightly less than $1200 worth of tickets. If the price of gold rises to $2400 people will buy twice as many tickets.

The block reward for mining is decreasing on a regular basis. Resources spent on mining will decrease because of lack of profitablity. If bitcoins value is dependent on mining then why isn't it decreasing with every year?

[noncoml]

What value do they create? Sure they burn electricity and energy but they don’t create any value other than the bitcoin value itself.

[proofofanalysis]

The incorruptibility of the ledger is the value.

[noncoml]

> The incorruptibility of the ledger is the value.

It cannot feed me, it cannot protect me from the elements, I cannot grow food on it and is not a tool to help me create something desirable by the others. Hence it has no value.

[proofofanalysis]

Bitcoin, being a form of wealth, can give you all the things you just described.

That it has no value during an apocalyptic scenario, does not mean it does not have value in the non-apocalyptic times.

[noncoml]

You cannot call it wealth to describe its value. You are just saying that the value of it is in itself. Which is what I am supporting as well.

In order for me to exchange it for goods, as you described, there must be someone who has the goods and is willing to exchange them for bitcoin. There is no real reason for someone to do so.

It is not an apocalyptic scenario. That’s what 90% if the population fight for, day in day out. Food, protection from the elements, security.