[halfcat]

Do you have any criticism to offer as to why BTC isn’t viable?

I’d love to be convinced. If I hear a single convincing argument I’ll beat that drum all day alongside you.

But all you’ve given is:

- gambling exists

- “musical chairs”

- cults exist

So, hand-waving. Help me out here.

[dools]

It has no underlying fundamentals. Its value is 100% speculative. Gold is somewhat similar, in that it's value is mostly speculative, but it does have some inherent utility/value.

Bitcoin has value for the same reason that vintage sneakers or Pokemon cards have value; that is there is a fetish for them and thus some belief that at some later time, someone will want to buy it for personal reasons (either due to their own beliefs or sentimentality).

Actual currency, on the other hand, derives its value from the willingness of the issuing sovereign to accept it back in payment of taxes.

[halfcat]

Fiat doesn’t hold value because it has fundamentals or inherent utility either.

Fiat currency holds value because it is backed by a sufficiently large group with guns.

Crypto currency holds value because it is backed by a sufficiently large group with encryption.

[dools]

> Fiat currency holds value because it is backed by a sufficiently large group with guns.

Yep that's what I said: payment of taxes.

> Crypto currency holds value because it is backed by a sufficiently large group with encryption.

I disagree. There is no reason for bitcoin to hold its value. Miners expend real resources (which they pay for) to obtain bitcoin because they speculate that someone will pay more for it further down the line.

People buy bitcoin for the same reason.

The price of bitcoin could go to zero without any compromise of the underlying encryption.

The purchasing power of a currency issued by a soevereign can only go to zero as a result of the collapse of sovereignty (ie. no more guns, or being outgunned). This is the very definition of hyper inflation in terms of a currency: when a government cannot provision itself in exchange for that currency.

[halfcat]

> they speculate that someone will pay more for it further down the line

The greater fool is not required when one asset is inflationary and the other is deflationary. A falling denominator is all you need.

> There is no reason for bitcoin to hold its value.

It holds its value for the same reason as fiat. Because the chance of anyone executing a successful attack on it is prohibitively small.

And if someone does, as you said, then it goes to zero.

In your view, how would bitcoin go to zero without a compromise in encryption?

[Ekaros]

Now what makes bitcoin special and different from any other coin? Take something like Litecoin, far below previous peaks. Surely it is not worse with encryption than bitcoin?

[halfcat]

At this point, market cap, i.e. the cost to execute an attack against it.

[dools]

> In your view, how would bitcoin go to zero without a compromise in encryption?

Everyone realises that it’s worthless and new buyers stop turning up to buy it for more money than the last round of fools

[lowkey]

“Actual currency, on the other hand, derives its value from the willingness of the issuing sovereign to accept it back in payment of taxes.”

And yet the purchasing power of the dollar has fallen by 99.5% since moving off the gold standard. Bitcoin claims to hedge against this steady decline in value which is caused by money printing.

If you believe they will stop printing money and diluting the value of the dollar, the argument for Bitcoin fails. If not, Bitcoin’s hard supply cap and perfectly inelastic supply when faced with changes in demand make it a compelling hedge.

[dools]

If I want to save my money for 100 years I won’t buy bitcoin or hold cash or gold I’ll put it in index funds.

[lowkey]

Purchasing bitcoin on any random date in history and holding it for four years or more has outperformed every single index, ETF, stock, commodity, real estate every single time.

Betting on a single index even being around in 100 years is risky. Betting on the dollar lasting 100 years is risky. Betting on Bitcoin lasting 100 years is also risky.

I think looking at 5, 10, or 20 time horizons is more practical and I have high confidence that Bitcoin will continue to be the best performing asset on those time horizons.

[dools]

Someone is going to get left holding the bag.

The reason I said 100 years is because the US went off the gold standard in 1933 (although it had a weird modified version until the 70s).

There are individual stocks that have been around for over 100 years. The Dow Jones has been around since 1884. Stock exchanges have been around since the 1500s.

Indexes that apply to the averages of top, say, 200 stocks in a given country's econonmy will definitely be there in 100 years, absent a collapse so monumental that money itself has no meaning.

Bitcoin is a freakish sideshow by comparison. Might as well buy baseball cards.