|
|
|
|
|
by throwaway21332
1671 days ago
|
|
The reason I am disconnecting those issues is that Bitcoin was never designed to solve the type of fraud you're talking about. There is no proposed mechanism to solve it, because it's outside of it's scope. It was designed to solve a specific set of frauds related with having a central authority though: censoring people from financial system, seizing your savings from your bank account and debasing the currency for the benefit of the political elite. Counterparty risk is real, but there are other ways to solve it, besides having a central authority that has the power to revert transactions, which comes with it's own risks. |
|
We started with:
"Anyone who says blockchain-driven assets don't have intrinsic value seems to ignore the value of trust - the ability to trust that the ledger is accurate seems extremely valuable."
Except the ledger doesn't actually provide any remedy to counter-party risk at all - I still have to trust a 3rd party at the time of exchange.
So the value of bitcoin is entirely dependent on the risk of the counter-party (because I have to pay to offset that risk, whether that's insurance, a private militia, legal contract enforced by a gov that I pay taxes to, simply eating the lost coins, etc)
Which means the intrinsic value of bitcoin is dependent on my ability to offset that risk - which I realistically (as a law abiding citizen) have to rely on the government to do, because the government has a monopoly on violence and imprisonment.
Which means the intrinsic value of a bitcoin is entirely at the whim of government control anyways. (which we already have an intuitive understanding of - this is why the price will fluctuate so much when news about government regulation or enforcement breaks).