[goosejuice]

How are you defining value here?

[quantadev]

Everything that hodls it's desirability even after a grid-down scenario.

[goosejuice]

In such a scenario you wouldn't be able to use fiat either. Guns and food would be of greatest value. Maybe we should just reserve guns and ammo?

[quantadev]

I never claimed fiat was an asset. Nobody considers cash an asset.

I'm a software developer since 1990 so I recognize the value of blockchain technology, but I'm also smart enough to know a number in a computer ledger is not an asset.

[desumeku]

Your idea of value is completely and utterly disrupted from the rest of the world, then.

[quantadev]

I can't think of any assets that exist only in cyberspace. But even if you assert that grid-independence is not important, you're still stuck making the false claim that there's any scarcity in cyberspace. New crypto-coins can be created at the press of a button, thus your whole entire faith and hope is that everyone will always use Bitcoin, which is provably false.

[desumeku]

>New crypto-coins can be created at the press of a button

Oh? Can you prove this? How are you capable of creating new Bitcoins without mining them? Surely this big secret you have should be worth sharing.

[quantadev]

The very fact that you're trying to pretend you conflated the words "crypto-coins" with "Bitcoins", as if you did it by accident (which you did not), proves my point better than I ever could have; because the entire [false] premise of scarcity among the Hodlers depends on having no other coins ever become popular.

[desumeku]

Do you think printing fiat money is somehow harder or less silly than printing cryptocurrencies? You don't have arguments against crypto, you just have arguments against money. "Anybody can come up with a different money that would be exactly equal in every way" applies both to the Dollar and to Bitcoin.