Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dkshdkjshdk 1803 days ago
Ok. So... if even traditional finance is slowly adopting these things, it kind of becomes hard to hold on to the idea that there aren't actually any use-cases outside of crime and speculation.

EDIT: Just to address your edit...

> On EURUSD, you could look at currency funds (not strictly the same, but as close as it gets)

And will they be willing to talk to a person that only wants to put 100 EUR + 100 USD into it? I seriously doubt it.
2 comments
rostigerpudel 1803 days ago
> [...]if even traditional finance is slowly adopting these things,[...]

All this means is there is money to be made. It does not mean that any particular use-case exists. So no, this does not make it hard to hold on to the idea above - no use-cases outside of crime and speculation.

If you provide storage for people's stuff and someone wants specialized storage for tulips you probably do not care whether the tulips are worth anything or useful. You rent them the space to store their tulips if you can make money that way.

link
dkshdkjshdk 1803 days ago
And "making money" does not sound like a use-case to you? Ok.

And tulips are not worthless... they just aren't as valuable as people thought they were, during the tulip mania.

link
rostigerpudel 1803 days ago
This making money has nothing to do with any intrinsic use-case or value of Bitcoin. As an intermediary (under which I also comprehend banks in terms of "tulip storage") you always make money whether your client wins, loses or absent-mindedly walks over a monetary cliff.

Making money trading or storing something does not mean that something has a use-case (hence the tulips example). So the fact that people make money off other people who think Bitcoin is the best thing since sliced bread does not mean Bitcoin has any use-case or intrinsic value.

link
RandomLensman 1803 days ago
Wasn't my claim. And speculation is fine anyway, because it is at the heart of any new business etc.
link
dkshdkjshdk 1803 days ago
Yes, I know. But it was the original claim that triggered the current thread.

Either way, thanks for the insight and information you brought to the discussion.

link