[zbraniecki]

That feels like a rationalization of an emotional argument.

Gold's current value is not related to its function as a material for jewelry, but from a myth that it is a store of value. If people would stop believing the myth, the cost of gold would plummet and stabilize around the value it provides as a material for jewelry.

Similarly, "art is lovely" is a really stretched argument. If you want, you could print your transaction block hash and consider it pretty as a math-art concept.

So yes, bitcoin needs people to believe in its value to remain valuable, much like everything else that is not a raw utility - nations, religions, money, corporations, gold, baseball cards, and so on.

Heck, even Ferraris would become much cheaper if people only valued them for their function. They cost a lot primarily because we value them highly due to myths and scarcity.

[chii]

> If people would stop believing the myth

imagine if tomorrow, we suddenly find ourselves mining gold from asteroids, and that gold suddenly became super-abundant. Would the price of gold drop to match just the material usage value (e.g., for jewellery and electronics)?

[paxys]

Yes. In the same way Bitcoin will be worthless if quantum computing or some yet undiscovered technology makes calculating hashes effortless.

[wolfretcrap]

But by then bitcoin would have started using quantum hashes.

[omegant]

It has happened before, aluminum is a good example.

[ZephyrBlu]

I would say yes.