[thevardanian]

> No, you mentioned it yourself: Bitcoin is a store of value. Moreover, it's one with a high liquidity, strong brand, limited supply, available in 180 countries, without banks involved and super reliable (gold doesn't have that features and please show me any other asset that has these features). So, it has a use and value.

As I've said before Bitcoin is absolutely a garbage "store of value". It's not going to exist for decades, let alone for centuries, because of the nature of technology. As you yourself have pointed out there's nothing inherent about Bitcoin other than a network effect that's made it a brand. It isn't backed and guaranteed by a government, there are no organization that are demanding to be paid only in Bitcoin as America demands to be paid only in dollars.

Furthermore There will be better technologies that will emerge and supplant Bitcoin. Land, Dollar, precious metals all far exceed as stronger "stores of value", both because of their historicity, and also because of their technology, that is a technology that is stable.

Not to mention the complete and utter lack of privacy of Bitcoin because of it's public ledger. Everyone knows everyone else's entire transaction history, and any large enough actor can find that out. Traditional stores of value don't have that problem, or rather not nearly as publicly visible.

Cryptocurrencies, and digital currencies do have place, but I don't think we've come to any sort of equilibrium as to what its role will be in society, which is why I don't think Bitcoin will succeed as "store of value", or currency.

[waytogo]

> It's not going to exist for decades, let alone for centuries, because of the nature of technology

How do you know, did you found a time machine??

> It isn't backed and guaranteed by a government

Even better. So many countries (basically 70% of all countries) have governments I wouldn't trust a single cent.

> there are no organization that are demanding to be paid only in Bitcoin as America demands to be paid only in dollars.

Exchanges?

> precious metals all far exceed as stronger "stores of value"

Go and try to buy some gold, it's not that easy and also, oh which surprise, also volatile.

> Everyone knows everyone else's entire transaction history,

Pipe it through exchanges and it get anonymous again. Not that I like this feature but if you need it...

You didn't really convinced me.

[thevardanian]

I don't care if I can convince you or not. That doesn't matter. Realistically only time will tell which one of us is right, and give either one of us the satisfaction of saying "told you so".

With that said are you saying that there will be no other competitors, or technological advancements that will improve on Cryptocurrency technologies, and supplant Bitcoin? If so, I think that's a more irrational position.

If Bitcoin gets large enough you'll just have cryptocurrency legislation that will regulate it to oblivion, and make what are relatively private transactions today into Big Brother is watching. Perhaps that's the goal anyways.

Physical cash is still king in terms of privacy, but a poor long term store of value if that cash isn't invested.

Metal is difficult to buy, and it is tracked, but that information isn't public. The value of a precious metal isn't in its liquidity, but rather its theoretical long term value so volatility isn't necessarily a factor. Land is better because it actually has uses, but similarly it too is volatile, and as such viewing it as a long-term 20+ year investment is better. Again the current value of it doesn't matter so much.

I'm not saying Cryptocurrencies have 0 value, just that we haven't reached a consensus of what exactly the value of a cryptocurrency is, or its role in society, let alone having achieved a technological stasis to make a cryptocurrency a long term store of value. There are in reality no true long-term store of value, just that some are better in way than others.

In general though, I think, the problem is what we as humans consider "value". So far I think the only real value of anything is what a State actor demands, and enforces as valuable. Not land, not precious metals, not cryptocurrencies, or dollars, but whatever a government deems officially as valuable becomes magically valuable.

If tomorrow congress makes Bitcoin the official currency of the USA, and buys up all the Bitcoins then Bitcoin will become infinitely valuable in comparison today. On the other if it's made illegal to make Bitcoin transaction it won't be worth a penny.

[baddox]

I don’t follow your argument that Bitcoin won’t be around for long because of the nature of technology. What exactly do you mean? Of course advancements will be made, but those can be merged into Bitcoin or even forked off of Bitcoin.