[ekianjo]

> good analogy

Sure, comparing and old physical asset that deprecate over time with a pure digital asset built on a blockchain makes a lot of sense. Currencies are way easier to trade than physical goods.

Everything is a question of supply and demand, it does not mean it's valid to compare every goods to another on the market.

[lottin]

Well, if you have a theory of prices that only applies to one good and fails when applied to any other good, it means your theory is rubbish. This is why we must check whether the proposed theory works when applied to goods other than bitcoin. It's not a comparison. Although, there's nothing wrong with comparing different goods either.

[oarsinsync]

Or the good being compared to isn’t an equivalent.

The Bitcoin you hold is exactly the same as the Bitcoin the GP holds.

The 1996 Toyota you hold is very different to the 1996 Toyota I hold. The goods are not interchangeable. They are not commodities.

[saalweachter]

Eh, once you stop caring about a functional 1996 Toyota Corolla the difference becomes extremely small. You can basically reduce the automobile to its VIN - that's how it's referred to legally. Whoever owns the number owns the "car".

Only 2.1 million 1996 Toyota Corolla VINs were ever minted; there will never be another. If 10% of the world assets were held as Toyota Corolla VINs, that would give us a value target for a VIN of about 14 million dollars per VIN; I think with those assumptions it's quite reasonable to value a Toyota Corolla at 1 million USD, regardless of condition.

[oarsinsync]

So how do I transfer VINs between owners, that’s somehow different to any other (artificially) scarce asset? Whats the risk of counterfeiting with VINs? What if I don’t want a whole VIN but a fraction of one?

Bitcoin having any value is absolutely a shared delusion. But it at least has other properties that differentiate it from other shared delusions.