- Jan 15, 2015
I think I already stated that cryptocurrencies should be treated as a casino, or as a futures contract. Pure speculation plays that also function as currencies.I think you're being extremely generous to cryptocurrencies, honestly. You're ignoring the very glaring issues that set them apart from other currencies.
It's just terribly ill-suited for virtually every application, in a way that makes it damn near impossible to compare to other currencies.
- Crypto hasn't functioned significantly as a currency for years. Bitcoin in particular has had fees high enough to render it useless for virtually all transactions since 2014, Ethereum isn't much better. PoS coins scale better, but still suck compared to anything else. And again, we're talking about a currency scaling poorly.
- Crypto's user experience sucks ass. Irrevocable keys without any kind of granular permissions so that, if you are ever compromised in any way, you lose all your coins irrecoverably. Crypto hacks are more like bank robberies where they always get away.
- The biggest of all, crypto entirely exists to allow trustless decentralized immutable transactions, and they just aren't useful. That's it, that's all crypto does and it trades tremendous computational efficiency to do it. And the best use-case we have is dodging international sanctions.
I'm not trying to be generous, anyone who has exchanged governmental fiat currencies into cryptocurrencies on cold wallets are probably shitting themselves in terror. That's what happens when you gamble and your position becomes less valuable. But this also happens with people who speculate on Forex with fiat currencies, so it's nothing new.
Well, we're disagreeing on something fundamental: that societal collapse isn't "far in the future", but that it's happening right now and most likely it won't even be debatable within a decade, whereas right now it is "debatable"...kinda how climate change was "debatable" a decade or two ago, but now is taken for granted by almost any serious person.What I’m saying is it will prove not to be a store of value at all as it will go to $0. Not at some point far in the future when society collapses, but in the relatively near future.
Anything can be used as a medium of exchange - but Bitcoin has no inherent value any different than giant stone discs or whatever, unlike all other currencies which have inherent value.
So in other words, we'd probably roughly agree on the future lifespan of Bitcoin as a useful store of value.
That said, you're still getting stuck using the term "inherent", and I think it's because you're trying to say "moral" or "ethical" or even "multipurpose"...or something.
Confederate State of America dollars had "inherent" value in 1863. By late 1864 they were kindling. It doesn't change the fact that it was a currency. And as for being a store of value...go check the price of a 1861 $10 CSA note in good condition. Bitcoin is a currency because it has value on a market and can be used to buy other things that are sold on the market. As long as both statements are true, it's a currency as "valid" as Federal Reserve Notes, or Iranian Rials. Hell, I can do a lot more with Bitcoin than I can with Iranian Rials, but it doesn't mean Rials don't have inherent value.
Bitcoin's "inherent" value is its value on a market. Until it's zero, it has inherent value as much as anything else that can be bought and sold on a market. And because it can be "easily" transferred and used to purchase things, it's a currency. Even if you don't think it's worth anything, it is until everyone agrees that it isn't. And to be honest, I think it will cease being a currency due to the loss of use as a medium of exchange before it becomes totally worthless, just look at any number of things that were money then became useless and then became "collectibles".