Had a thought today while running...
There has been much discussion over the value of a Bitcoin when one removes its use as a money. There are issues with the regression theorem, etc.
Gold clearly has value beyond its use as money. Primarily, it looks pretty and is thus perpetually desired for ornamentation. There are other uses, but this is where gold originally got its value - from its pretty shine. Observers of gold are fascinated by it - attracted to it due to its properties.
Well... is this not also true with Bitcoin? When Bitcoin was first discovered and released, was it not initially desired for its curious nature? Were initial adopters not attracted to it due to its strange properties, much like ancient man was attracted to gold? Of course, it's the geeky crypto people who were initially attracted, but I think it's a fair point that they picked up these early bitcoins purely because "they were cool to look at and hold" - albeit on a digital drive.
Even for those like me who don't fully understand the cryptography, Bitcoins are damn cool. They are intrinsically interesting and attractive. Gold is also intrinsically interesting and attractive. Both commodities attract the observer, and their monetary usage subsequently sprang forth in like manner because both commodities possess those properties which make them great forms of money (scarcity, divisibility, authenticity, etc.). Does this not satisfy the regression theorem?
In my assessment on this matter was that bitcoin has its own uniqueness were bitcoin fanatic should be proud of. Also gold has its own uniqueness too. However since bitcoin its not an ancient compare to gold but in terms of volatility it is more aggressive than the it has. And like what everybody said, decentralization is the main reason of mine why I was so attracted unto it.
