[tehjoker]

> Bitcoin can no longer disappear overnight. It was true in the beginning, but the network and mind-share is too big now.

This is what they said about the housing market in 2008. The question isn't whether bitcoin would operate at least 1 transaction, it's whether it is usable as a stable store of value or a large useful network.

> The market seems to value a independent and censorship proof currency differently than you, as those are two of the main features of Bitcoin and Bitcoin is seemingly receiving a lot of high praise, at least at the moment and past 7 years.

I meant morally, not financially. I suspect that multi-nationals are trying to become supranational entities and would be thrilled to be able to become more powerful and free from discipline from individual nations.

[capableweb]

The argument you made was (Bitcoin's value is based on...):

- completely ephemeral feelings

- the size of its network

And that both of those can disappear overnight.

Now you're changing the argument to if Bitcoin can be used for "a stable store of value" and if it's a "large useful network".

Then no, Bitcoin is currently not stable, it's pretty easy to see if you look at the fluctuation of the price. And yes, it is a useful, large network currently live in a production environment today. Sure, it has lots of problems, but since people are using it, we can consider it useful (at least to the people using it), otherwise people wouldn't use it.

The housing market in 2008 is hardly relevant to Bitcoin, as that market is controlled by larger entities that has power to decide things, ultimately the government. Bitcoin doesn't work like that, but I'm sure you're familiar with how Bitcoin works already, otherwise why would you discuss about it here?

The second argument you made was that "You can use Bitcoin to get around government sanctions" is the most "solid thing" you can say about Bitcoin, and that it's not exactly "high praise". The market clearly disagrees with you here, but then you think that it's more about "morals" than "financials". I agree with you here, but I say it's morally a good praise to be able to get around any restriction, especially since that was one of the original goals with Bitcoin. That Bitcoin set that as a goal, and still is achieving it after many years of attempts of being taken down, shows that the value the market assigns to Bitcoin is much closer to reality than what you think is the value of Bitcoin.

Overall, you are discussing in bad faith it seems. You're not interested in learning a new perspective, you're interested in converting others into your perspective, so unfortunately this conversation is not very fruitful. Take care.

[tehjoker]

> Now you're changing the argument to if Bitcoin can be used for "a stable store of value" and if it's a "large useful network".

The point of Bitcoin is to serve those purposes. My critique is that it cannot because it is based mostly on ephemeralities.

> The housing market in 2008 is hardly relevant to Bitcoin,

The housing market collapsed because of government inaction, not action. People valued CDOs as AAA rated when the actual underlying reality was worthless. Eventually reality caught up with us.

> That Bitcoin set that as a goal, and still is achieving it after many years of attempts of being taken down

This is agreed, incredibly technically successful. I do not agree that violating democratic rules is always a good thing, but I do see it as a good thing for countries that come under the gun of US imperialism such as Iran or Venezuela. However, in general, I am not a fan as the people that will use it the most are likely to be large corporate actors to escape any kind of accountability.

Censorship resistance is the only thing I can see in Bitcoin that is not ephemera.

[tim333]

>The question is ... whether it is usable as a stable store of value

Does it have to be stable? I doubt the people who invested at $100 are thinking shit it's gone to $50k I need something more stable.