[remarkEon]

I'm having trouble following your argument (disclaimer: I understand the philosophical arguments underlying BTC and crypto in general, some technical details of how to manage it, little of the math). You say that you don't see it competing with payment systems but as a currency, but isn't the benefit BTC is supposed to offer the infrastructure itself? How is that not a "payment system", in the abstract sense?

For example:

>One could envision a credit card denominated in BTC that offers transaction reversibility and dispute resolution features.

This is a payment system, right?

[olalonde]

> but isn't the benefit BTC is supposed to offer the infrastructure itself?

My point is that the "infrastructure" is nice, but it's not the sole advantage of Bitcoin. The primary benefit, in my opinion, lies in its predictable and unalterable supply mechanism, which prevents any entity from manipulating it. While the on-chain payment system and the relative ease of self-custody are great features (and necessary for the system to work), they are not essential for enjoying the benefits of Bitcoin as a currency with an immutable supply. You can still reap those benefits when using "off chain" payment systems that use BTC balances (e.g. credit cards/PayPal/Cash App/etc.). Also, Bitcoin has an open API, making it easy to create payment systems on top of it (the equivalent for USD would be... obtaining an account at the Federal Reserve? transporting cash?).

Hope it makes sense, let me know if anything is still unclear.

[remarkEon]

Thanks for the genuine response (I know BTC arguments on HN can get repetitive and dumb).

>The primary benefit, in my opinion, lies in its predictable and unalterable supply mechanism, which prevents any entity from manipulating it.

I agree, and to add to this point the supply is fixed. No more printing. I don't necessarily disagree with your response, it's just that I find this

>...the relative ease of self-custody

hard to believe. It's not easy. The Average Joe just buys BTC on Coinbase (or cashapp or whatever) and it sits there. Those are not their Coins (we all know this). Maybe I've missed something in the past couple years that's made things easier, or maybe I'm just a puritan who insists on hardware wallets.

Anyway, I'm mostly arguing against myself here because I do think that the fiat system is a problem. But again, even if I make that argument I struggle to see BTC as an actual currency and not as some sort of reserve asset. I don't think there's an example beyond Gold where something has existed as both. And making the argument that BTC is the same as Gold is a very strong argument to make, because without electricity and the internet my BTC is worthless. Suppose for a moment that the US does troll itself into a WWIII scenario with Russia and/or China in the next couple years - a war where Internet infrastructure will obviously be a target. Is BTC still worth anything? Gold will still be worth something, because it has physical uses in war time. But BTC?

[Brian_K_White]

"relative"

You can arguably be your own btc bank a hell of a lot easier than you can be your own usd bank.

I know I don't have room for a vault full of gold that is as theft-proof as even basic cryptography, and I certainly don't have direct api access to the ACH network or any of the other networks a bank does.

The necessary steps to host your own btc are not nothing, but compared to that they are practically trivial.