It is really hard to say if bitcoin is a bubble or not. What I know is that bitcoin don't offer anything
in return when you invest on it. And bitcoin is don't have any promises that it will perform well to
increase it's worth.
Bitcoin's price is merely from the demand it's getting from people without giving any promises. So is it a bubble?
Fiat currencies are literally worthless by definition so that argument doesn't really hold at all. Bitcoin takes a lot of effort/money to create and carries large risks, all of which are factored into the price.
Furthermore, it's the gateway into a whole new class of investment assets, so that adds to the value of Bitcoin as well.
And lastly, it has a technology driving it that is far superior to traditional financial instruments.
So saying that Bitcoin doesn't offer anything in return is complete nonsense.
I think AmXProX's point is that you can't trade bitcoin in for anything, just like you can't trade fiat in for anything (as opposed to a commodity-backed currency in which you can trade in the currency for the commodity). There are indeed things that make bitcoin valuable, but it's not backed by anything, and there's nothing to really determine how much it
should be worth. Bitcoin could function just as well at $1000/coin as it can at $6000/coin. In fact, while the hash rate would drop and theoretically increase the potential for someone to mount a 51% attack against it, bitcoin would probably still function at $100, or maybe even $10.
That's the case with any denominator though.
Even if you take Gold and reintroduce it as a currency, nobody will be able to tell you what that piece of Gold
should be worth. Because there is no such value. The value always strictly depends on two trading parties coming to an agreement.
As such, it makes literally no difference whether we decide to all collectively use Gold, Fiat, or Bitcoin as our standard currency. The amount of goods traded will adjust accoding to the supply and demand of currency vs goods.
Bitcoin is by far the most convenient and efficient solution though, and more sophisticated cryptos will be even more so.
Ok, so this is kind of tricky, but I think we actually agree somewhat. The benefit of using a gold-backed currency (or gold itself) is that the supply is tangible, limited, and cannot be changed easily. In essence, your country's supply of gold represents the value/worth of your country's economy. If you have 1000 oz of gold, then each ounce represents 1/1000 of your country's economic output/worth/wealth. If your economy grows (increases in productivity and wealth), each ounce of gold is worth more, and vice-versa.
The problem with fiat currency, of course, is that a government can increase the supply at will, which devalues it.
Bitcoin is not tangible, but it does have the advantage of limited supply, and actually its even better than gold in that the supply is completely fixed (assuming that enough people don't decide to increase the cap, which hopefully will never happen). So I think that bitcoin
could work just as well as gold as a currency, but the problem is that right now it doesn't. As a currency, it just sits next to all other currencies. It isn't backed by a particular economic system (like a country, state, etc.) that includes well-defined/well-known production or services of some sort, so it's not really possible to figure out how much it
should be worth.