[awt]

Although this is a true statement it is not persuasive in that Bitcoin (unlike a special issue comic, or any other rare thing) has specific, meaningful properties (fungibility, divisibility, durability, etc.) that interact with the world according to well known principles (Gresham's Law, Lindy Effect, Theory of Computation, Network Effect, etc.) that must be shown not to apply in order to disqualify it as the best available store of value.

[tptacek]

https://tinyurl.com/Special-Pleading

[awt]

What principle is not being universally applied? Or do I misunderstand?

[tptacek]

Many of the ostensible characteristics of Bitcoin you've provided also apply to special-edition 1990s Marvel comics. The idea that a good needs to be "divisible" to be valuable is nowhere supported by evidence and easily rebutted by counterexample. Your argument is essentially handwaving: all sorts of terrible investments are "great for people with low time preference", in that they will have no value in the immediacy, and their only hope of profitable redemption is to hold until some unspecified, unpredictable future date.

Illiquidity is a bad thing, not an generally an indicator that something is an especially good investment.

[awt]

How could Gresham's Law apply to Bitcoin if it were not divisible? Or are you suggesting that comic books could be considered money (one property of which is divisibility) to the same degree as Bitcoin? Hopefully we agree that divisibility is not an "ostensible" characteristic of Bitcoin, but a "factual" characteristic of it?

Also your tendency to define things in binary terms (liquid/illiquid, value/no value) is troubling.

Why the struggle to pretend not to be able to tell the difference between Bitcoin and limited edition comic books?

[tptacek]

I'm not "pretending" anything. I think the difference is illusory, except for the fact that you can actually read the comic book, so it has some marginal real utility.