[smoovb]

Paper bills, or “fiat” money, also have no intrinsic value.

Using paper money has already defined you as a participant in accepting the societal construct of money.

As such, Bitcoin having no intrinsic is not novel or consequential and has no bearing on its utility.

[rsynnott]

Well, I mean (a) it is unwise to accumulate a big pile of paper money (or the equivalent in a bank), like a common Disney duck plutocrat; if you do this, you will in the long run lose money in real terms. By design. Money (or at least modern money; things were somewhat different in persistently-deflationary pre-industrial economies) is not designed for investment. Money should not be the comparison; it’s a tool, not an investment vehicle.

But (b) money is given some real grounding by states; you can pay tax with it, in particular. It’s not much, and it’s not bulletproof, but by comparison to cryptocurrency, well, it’s _something_.

But really, it makes no sense as an argument that hoarding cryptocurrency is a good idea, because hoarding _money_ is, notoriously, a _bad_ idea.

[dnamlin]

Modern money has operated as you describe for less than one human lifetime. It might not work long-term, and indeed there are significant reasons for worry that it won't. Not that it _can't_ in principle, but that it _won't_ due to mismanagement and misaligned political incentives. A future alternate system might well have deflationary characteristics.

[rsynnott]

If you mean Bretton Woods, that is in many ways an implementation detail. Ignoring the Great Depression (which probably _should_ be treated as a special case), and brief (~1 year) shocks after WW1 and 2, the last time the US, to take an example, saw _persistent_ deflation was the late 19th century.

[amrocha]

Fiat currencies have value because you have to pay your taxes with it. There’s no choosing not to participate.