| I guess it depends whether you think people actually starting to use this stuff, as intended, will be a good thing. I think the more people actually "take the bullshit seriously", it'll be like trying to take the emperor's new clothes and sell them at your local discount store. Ie., there is no actual use case for any of this. Its only useful insofar as it exists as a ponzi asset (ie., it only has value because other people want it because other people want it... because other people want it...). It doesnt actually solve any problems.. so the more a recession deflates bubbles, the more that businesses/projects/etc. will need to show actual economic value to survive. Bitcoin has a "marginal productive value" in something, i'd say, c. 100 USD region. As in, the slow, largely useless, bitcoin transaction network provides the service of "publically, reliably, slowly" processing a block of transactions between parties. How much value does that have? AS A SERVICE, really... almost none. You could create a better competitor service tomorrow, and charge much less to use it (hence: all the other coins). Crypto isnt like gold: there isnt a limited supply. You can just create more coins: doge, eth, etc. THere's an infinite supply of self-liming coin systems. It's trivial to create a competitor service. So think about bitcoin as an actual product: trivial to out-compete, provides basically no useful service, horrifically slow. As a business model, its DOA. |
There is a much stronger guarantee that there is limited bitcoin when compared to gold. We have no idea what tech advancements will allow mining gold from comets or neighboring planets. A bit more far fetched, but maybe not impossible in the future would be changing other elements into gold.
Bitcoin has a codified contract that is being upheld socially with vast amounts of resources proving that society agrees on the limited supply. Sure, you can fork the codebase and create another chain. That has happened many times, which just proves a new chain does not do anything to the agreed upon, codified, limited supply of bitcoin.
As for your other points, they're presented constantly as serious arguments and debated ad-nauseam. Either you've just not witnessed it, or you're just trying to present things as uncontested facts which appears disingenuous and does not strike me as an honest argument.