Topic: Does Bitcoin have real value? (Read 1122 times)

I think the value of bitcoin is whether people really trust bitcoin, some people just like bitcoin, and some people don't know or even know what bitcoin is.
As much as I love Bitcoin, then there is value to me.

Bitcoin does not have a real values which people can stamped at that without this particular volume bitcoin will be crash on the planet Earth but it is not like that because it's not centralised currency and looking at Bitcoin bitcoin is decentralized currency which it cannot be regulated by anyone or it volume in the market, so therefore Bitcoin value is spherical, because it have more specific base from the value and the value is a rotational value.

I agree, except I see you possibly equivocating between value and price with your "Every person at different times value everything at different prices." A version of this that does not suggests equivocation is "Every person at different times are willing to pay different prices for what they think is a value."

The other thing I would add to what you wrote is "The market can be mistaken or defrauded about both price and value." This is why some people used to (and many still do) pay a "price" for the "value" of snake oil.

An independent person will perform his own analysis to determine both whether something is a value (by figuring out the why) and, once it's determined to be a value, whether the price is a fair one. At least for the major purchases in his life and just rely on existing pricing mechanisms (e.g., Amazon, Best Buy) for the little things.

People can be mistaken in holding an internal standard that their self-worth is dependent on the evaluation of others. Like I said, people can be mistaken or defrauded about values.

What about all the things people buy to show off? These things add value to some people's lives because having them and being able to display them makes them feel better. They like to see the envy in other people's eyes, but these things are not vital to our lives. They don't make our lives better in any other way than by allowing us to feel better. Shouldn't these things have price?
IMO everything that has demand should have price.

Oxygen is very valuable for human life, but the price is free.

It's not always the case that something very valuable is very expensive.

Also value depends on the individual and the area they live

Some people value different things differently, and so on.

Basically there's no single price for something. Every person at different times value everything at different prices.

The markets try to get close to that real value with estimates, and people react accordingly.

One thing I've come to learn from the conversations on this thread is to distinguish between value and price. Value is qualitative and price is quantitative.

Something is of value if it enhances the life of the valuer in some way. Water, for example, is of value to human life. We need to consume it at least every 3 days to survive (in hot climate the time period is shorter).

Something should be assigned a price ONLY if it is of value to your life. The price reflects the cost to acquire that thing from someone else and/or the existence of alternatives. So in a place where there are a variety of places to get water, then the price of water will be low. However, in a place where water is scarce, then the price will be high. The fact that the price is high doesn't mean water is more valuable, and the fact that the price is low doesn't mean that value has decline. It just means the costs to acquire it from someone else has change. The value (i.e., needing to consume it every 3 days to survive) remains the same.

Now, people can be mistaken or defrauded into thinking that something is a value when in fact it does not. And so they can be mistaken or defrauded into assigning a price to it when they shouldn't. This is why relying on the fact that others have assigned a price to something as a determinant on whether it is a value or not is not a good methodology to operate from.

The answer of this question is very simple.

If you're able to trade Bitcoin for anything else of certain value, then the value of Bitcoin is exactly that.

There doesn't need to be intrinsic value in the money itself.

For example, today, the bills in Venezuela are worth less than the material it is printed on. That's a waste of resources.

There's no need to have intrinsic value, money has it's own value depending on many external factors.

Bitcoin is great because it's remarkably cheap to store, operate, use, etc, and it's value is designed to increase over decades.

Those who are dumping Bitcoin, are in for short term basis and the fact is since Bitcoin have the intrinsic value and that make it hard for Bitcointo totally lost that value unless it is exchange for the dollar, and even at the moment Bitcoinis still being sold at a high price, so let leave it at that and enjoy the whole process of Bitcoin development and advancement.

Of course not Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. People are very scared for this because bitcoin is being dumped a lot. But I believe bitcoin will reach a better value very soon. Currently bitcoin price is $20458. I believe bitcoin price will not be dumping anymore. But if bitcoin market behaves like this, People will stop believing in cryptocurrencies. But the current price of Bitcoin is 20458.

Never ceases to amaze me how little people know of history.

This reminds me of that harry potter line. When harry "dies" and he is in the train station with dumbledore, he asks if any of this is real or is it in his mind, dumbledore says just because it's in your mind doesn't mean that it's not real. This is about the same thing basically for bitcoins value.

Just because we are the only ones that give it a value and make it 20k+ doesn't mean that it doesn't have a value, we have a "real" value and that's the price, we decide its value. This is how you should approach it, why? Because for the first time in all of human history, "people" have money, not governments, not nations, not armies, literally just people.

It doesn't follow that the fact that the subjective theory is wrong means you have to assume that things are inherently valuable in themselves (the intrinsic theory). It is a false dichotomy to assume that it's either subjective or intrinsic. There is a third choice: the objective. Value based on facts and a valuer.



I applied the objective theory of value to gold. I am unable to apply the objective theory of value to Bitcoin.


It looks like you're conflating subjective value and price. These are two different things. Subjectivity (and objectivity) has to do with methodology. Being subjective means to go by your feelings. Being objective means to go by facts. Value and price are not methodologies, they are information about some thing. Value identifies whether that thing is positive for your life whereas price identifies the difficulty to acquire that thing. I do think that price can be determined objectively based on qualities like scarcity and the existence of alternatives. But a thing should only have a price IF it is a value. If it is not a value, then any price assigned to it is unwarranted because the scarcity of it is irrelevant.

You said the subjective theory of value is wrong because people are sometimes mistaken about value. People might well be mistaken about gold being valuable too, yet it doesn't mean that gold has no value now. For your theory to work correctly, we should assume that some things are inherently valuable in themselves, regardless of whether people value them or not. This claim does not stand up to criticism since, in order to prove its validity, we need the absence and presence of valuing human beings at the same time, which is an absurdity.



The price of water depends on many factors, but the main factor that commands the price is the scarcity or abundance of the thing in question. Water in NYC is more abundant than that in the desert, hence the difference in price. If it had been otherwise - water had been distributed equally among all places, and everyone had unlimited access to it - the price of it would depend on other factors.

Bitcoin' scarcity and its fair distribution are given, unchangeable factors, the price of it fluctuates because people recognize both fundamental factors (objective) and factors that they subjectively value. Some people fail to recognize even fundamental factors, therefore, they will find nothing to subjectivity value either.

Bitcoin is a limitless currency of the Internet that gives people the freedom to financial freedom, whereas fiat currency gives a limit Bitcoin will give that freedom to go. beyond, as a decentralized currency Bitcoin is a utility coin that is used for payment over the internet and that is why Bitcoin is referred to as the currency of the Internet.

By saying "aren't allowed", are you saying that I will use force on people who are mistaken? Because I've made no such claims. People are allowed and are often mistaken. They also pay for the consequences of their mistakes all the time.


It may be true that gold is scarce. It may be true that gold has high stock-to-flow ratio. It may be true that it's hard to destroy. These are not the attributes that makes gold value. Gold is valuable due to its affect on the valuer, specifically, Man. Now, those attributes may make gold expensive (i.e., cause it to have a high price), but price and value are two different things.

Let me give you an example. Water has a specific affect on Man. It is needed for survival. Now, you may think that water is of higher value to a Man who has been walking in the desert without water for several days vs. a Man living in NYC. I disagree. The need of Man for water is the same. What is different is the price. It's a lot easier to get water in NYC than it is to get water in the desert; hence a Man in the desert is willing to pay more for water than a Man in NYC.

It has real value, but the fiat to Bitcoin conversion rate is not a very accurate assessment of it. Tends to get overbought and oversold as the mood varies from euphoria to panic.

You keep repeating the same argument while not explaining why people aren't allowed to be mistaken about objects of their valuation. Take gold as an example of a valuable object that still keeps maintaining its value. Gold is seen as a valuable commodity because it is scarce in supply, has a very high stock-to-flow ratio, is very hard to destroy due to its chemical passiveness, etc. All these properties are a part of its nature and literally, all people on planet Earth recognize its significance, therefore, gold is more than just "subjectively valuable." Can all people on Earth be erroneous about the "undeniable value" of gold? Certainly yes, because once humanity comes up with a cheap way to synthesize gold or extract it from asteroids, or find better alternatives, or whatnot, gold will immediately lose all its value and turn out to be a scam or the greatest failure of all times. Or not? Maybe gold won't be called a scam but simply an obsolete type of money which are meant to be replaced by something better? People will be seeking a replacement, namely perfect money, money that can't be debased, can't be found on asteroids and other planets, can't be synthesized in a laboratory, but that can be sent digitally with a speed of light to another person without having to be dependent on the intermediary. Don't you think such money is worth being valued?

Humans are not 100% rational which is fine. This is what makes us human.
I think this is more of a philosophical concept.

Theranos stock was once usable to “obtain objects, things of value”. That doesn’t mean the stock in the company had value. So the answer to your question is, because people can be mistaken or defrauded. That’s why you want to practice objectivity and look at the supporting facts and not just go with the crowd (aka group subjectivity).

If I didn't read what you wrote or ignored 90% of it, then how did I manage to describe what you mean by the subjective theory of value?


Subjectivity is only about behaviors. Objectivity is about behaviors AND facts. You value your life. That's why you acquire fiat currency to pay taxes (probably more than just that but let just stick with taxes for now) so that you can protect your life from government force. Now, are you doing it because of some delusional fear about the government coming after you if you don't pay taxes? If so, then that would make the value of fiat currency subjective. However, if it is factual that the government would come after you, then fiat currency has the objective utility value of keeping you out of jail or worse. You may not like it, but facts are not subject to your whims.


You forgot to include in the quote of my response my quote of what you wrote. This is what you wrote:

Humans
Arent
Fuckin
Rational

It was in camel case capitalization with each word on separate lines for emphasis. So yes, I read what you wrote and took it seriously.



We can make mistakes. We can also be defrauded. That's why objectivity requires that you verify your assumptions against facts using logic.

Similar to Fiat currency, Bitcoin (or most of the cryptocurrencies) is also not backed by any gold or silver hence does not have any intrinsic value. The value of any currency comes from the backing of the state and the trust that people have over the government

I'm sorry, but what's so hard to grasp about this? People gain benefits they can't otherwise have with bitcoin. Fiat currency definitely serves a purpose currently, but this doesn't make bitcoin valueless.

- You don't gain the benefit to send money across the world, via the internet in a censorship resistant fashion with fiat.
- You don't get to enjoy cheap transaction fees via the internet with fiat.
- You don't gain the benefit to have your transaction settled within a few minutes (or instantly) via the internet with fiat.
- You don't gain privacy via the internet with fiat.
- You're not collectively responsible for fiat's monetary policy.

You do gain these benefits with bitcoin. That's why it's so valuable.

Next time try reading what i wrote, because the subjective theory of value means exactly what you just described and i explained it like this. Maybe if you wouldnt ignore 90% of what people are saying your debate would even advance.

It is about behaviour, not just thinking it has no value. People are giving up what they value less for something they value more. People here are switching Fiat to Bitcoin, because they value it more. When i just needed fiat then i might exchange my Bitcoin for fiat, its an exchange where both sides benefit. That most people here hold way more Bitcoin than fiat, shows that they value Bitcoin more. It is not about absolutes. It is always subjective about what is being wanted or needed by the individual. Each good serves us a purpose with differing importance, there are many subjective and objective factors that can influence it and this can vary based on current needs and wants.

I can already deem fiat valueless in my mind, it can be almost valueless to me, i can prefer other things over it. No one here would refuse 500.000$ right now just because its fiat, because in reality they can still use it. And the same way you wouldnt refute 500.000$ in Bitcoin even tho its valueless to you. When people here say it has 0 value, they mean its purchasing power tending to go to 0 and that its not a sustainable form of money. And oftentimes people come here saying Bitcoin doesnt have value, and then coming up with the biggest bs to explain why fiat has value, but if we applied their logic to every kind of money, then nothing would have value. If you are so objective how didnt you notice it yet?

The subjective theory of value doesnt exclude: supply and demand, cost theory, objectivity, rationality. It just claims that value is something intrinsically human full of errors, uncertainty, learning, making choices, evaluating things individually. If value wasnt subjective it would just be a constant, but in reality were seeing how volatile everything is.

Can you read? I also never claimed humans are incapable of rationality, but oftentimes they try to rationalize their own subjectivity.


I have a better question for you, is any human capable of perfect rationality forever? If yes, why do we need peer review in academia, why do centralized systems keep failing and being destructive to many people? It’s a fact that no human is capable of perfect rationality in every single issue in the world forever. Otherwise we could just elect one leader and live in a kind of utopia forever, but reality just proves this wrong. Subjectivity will strike any human at some point, because it’s inherent to us.

A human that recognizes their own irrationality and stays humble will reach far higher levels of rationality, than someone who thinks they’re capable of perfect rationality, fight against this, create more and more complex theories, try as hard as you want, but reality will always prove this again and again. The first step is to be rational about your own being, and accepting that we’re subjective and evaluate things accordingly.

The Labour Theory of value had been criticized simply because no two human laborers are equally productive.

In a digital economy where the labor is a machine doing a specific job ( a specialized labor) the labour theory starts to make sense. For example, a  mining machine would use x Joules of energy to produce y terrahashes. This diminishes variances between the skills of a machine and another if they are identical.

However; because economic markets are driven by competing forces, this competition shifts from finding the most skillful laborer, to finding the most cost-efficient factors of production such as lower cost/kwh, lower land rents for big mining operations, or even factors that optimize the efficiency of machines, such as cooling setups.

The shift of competition from labor skills to cost efficient factors of production results in a value derived from the  "total cost of production" , aka the natural price.

It is the limited amount of bitcoin availability that gives bitcoin its value. Many investors also relate bitcoin to digital gold. As the number of bitcoins will decrease the bitcoin will be referred to as a scarce asset and the prices will increase significantly.

How could it not have real value if it has, can, and will continued to be used to obtain objects, things of value?  Of course it has value and it value has and will continue to go up in time, HODL!

You don't have to agree with me. If you hold the subjective theory of value as being legitimate, then you are wrong for claiming that fiat has no value since you are going against the fact that most people (including you if you're still working and paying taxes) are treating fiat as if it has value. Your own use of fiat as if it has value refutes your claim that it has no value.


Humans has the capacity to be rational. It's a choice in terms of whether they want to be or not.

However, if you take the metaphysical position that human can't be rational, then I can see why you reject the epistemological concept of objectivity and its ethical derivative of objective values.

People are saying that the price and the value are different things, that's the issue. I mean I think they are the same thing and if people think it is not then it's their problem. But, what you are talking about is the price, so when they come here again, they will say that 20k is the price, and not the value.

I believe if we were to say the value is different, I would put the value a lot higher, in my mind bitcoin WILL be 100k+ for sure and there is no doubt about that at all. This is why we should try to focus on what we can do and not what we can't control and since I know it will go up, I just buy as much as I can and patiently wait for it to go up.

If you're asking this question in 2022, then it means that you haven't researched about Bitcoin at all.

It’s funny that you talk about things needing facts too, but then keep bending concepts however they fit your narrative.

Now im thinking that you’re not even looking at concepts but brainstorming bs to fit ur bias.

The subjective theory of value means that, the value of something lies in how much an individual values and desires it himself, this is subjective and can change. This can include facts, but it’s decided on an individual basis. And like we’re seeing your interpretation of facts can be different from anyone else, so this can be subjective again. Humans are highly subjective beings, there’s people who think the earth is flat and everyone around them is dumb, they think it’s facts too. No matter if you present actual facts or not.

Its not so much the inherent properties of things themselves, even tho this can influence it. We even see that information(„facts“) is valued differently on an individual basis. It would just be foolish to deny that you prefer other things than me. The concept of demand was derived from this, do you deny this one too?

Your viewpoint is also human centric its foolish for any human to claim superior objectivity, give a dog a gold coin and see how much he values it. To us gold might seem valuable, but if an alien watched us from above he would probably think wtf is going on here. Were letting kids/ poor people extract it for us in poor countries and they get nothing from it, were destroying entire liveable habitats for this thing and were even killing/ starting wars with other humans for some metal or paper that has no significant inherent value, all of this might not indicate that this species needs objectivity for anything.

Humans
Arent
Fuckin
Rational
(You’re a good example, because you think force gave fiat it’s value and a voluntarily adopted currency like Bitcoin is worthless) Your whole thought process is shouting subjectivity.

If they want something they’ll do it, they can value something even in absence of facts or benefit. The tobacco industry is making 1 trillion every year without helping anyone, people know it’s bad for them, there’s literally pictures of sick people on the cover, and despite the presence of facts, people spend more on a pack of cigarettes than on a pack of water. How can you explain it, without needing subjectivity? Subjectivity doesn’t exclude objectivity, but this choice lies in the individual, they choose and desire however the f they want.

To me it seems like youre not even choosing reality as any reference point to check ur ideas, you just have this idea that everyone around you is wrong about Bitcoin and you gotta prove it, instead of maybe trying to understand it.

Please don’t take my lack of comment on your other points as agreement, but I only want to respond to this point because it is so much more important than the other points. This is because a) I think it’s the primary reason why people believe Bitcoin has value (Smack That Ace’s post right above this post is an example of this theory in action) and b) the validity of the subjective theory of value affects more things than just Bitcoin.

To answer your question of, “What value would any good have if we didn’t exist?” The answer is: No value.

I wrote in a response to another person that value requires the existence of a value. More specifically, a thing is a value when it supports that person’s life, and a thing is a disvalue if it harms that person’s life.

Now you’re probably thinking, so doesn’t this prove that value are subjective in that it is dependent on the subject? For example, a large piece of cheesecake may be a value to a healthy 20 years old subject, but a disvalue to a 60 years old with diabetes subject.

I say no because this is not what the term subjective means when use in conjunction with the term objective. Subjective means independent of facts (i.e., to go by feelings) and objective means dependent on facts.

Now, if you were to ask, “So who, other than the subject determines whether something is an value to that subject or not?” I would respond with, anybody with access to the facts could make that determination. For example, it’s not hard for me to draw the conclusion that the crack Mr. X is taking is a disvalue to him even if Mr. X disagrees and feels like it is a value because it serves the purpose of helping him evade some sort of psychological pain. If I were to use a more ambiguous example of marijuana, I would say that it’s harder for me to draw this conclusion about Mr. Y usage of it since I don’t know if he’s using it to evade some sort of psychological pain (which would make it a disvalue since it delays the requirement for him to address that pain) or if he’s using it to numb physical pain to which he has no other way to deal with.

So as you can see, I agree with you that value requires a valuer; but to be objective it also requires facts too.

---

First, I want to distinguish concepts from words. Concept are the ideas in your head. Words are the perceptual reference to those concepts. Words are like pointers to concepts.

As you’ve observed, different culture uses different languages which have different words pointing to the same concept. So the concept of “spoon” may have different words in German vs. English but they both refer to the same concept. That is, similar objects (but not identical) arises in the recipient’s mind when you say the word “spoon” or its equivalent in German (to a German language person).

Now I agree with you that it doesn’t matter what the words are. That is, it doesn’t matter if the English person calls the concept of spoon “spoon” or “price” or “glast” unless they want to communicate with another English speaker. At that point, it does matter that there is agreement between the two individual that the word “spoon” refers to the same concept.

Now, that may mean that the words, for the purposes of communication, are necessarily subjective; but it doesn’t mean that the concepts themselves are.

For example, I may “feel” like the concept of “glast” should refer to both things that can be used to scoop soup as well as things that can be used to cut meat. But that would be an invalid concept because it is tying things together by their non-essential. That is, spoons are used for specific type of tasks. Even if no two spoons are identical, they all can be used for the same tasks. Knives, however, are used for very different tasks. To combine these two category of things together under the same concept would make the concept useless and therefore invalid.

Now, some person may claim that, based on their feelings, the term “glast” should refer to both spoon-objects and knives-objects. And they would suffer the consequences for creating and using invalid concepts by ignoring the fact of reality that these are two very different objects.

Demand is the source of value, so as long as demand is there, any good or asset will have value, as long as it is in demand. Whether an item has a low or high value depends on its quality and scarcity. Bitcoin is currently priced at about 20k $ and that is the real value at the moment, as long as you sell it, there will be buyers right away. Bitcoin assets are highly volatile as people tend to speculate in search of profits and its value is highly volatile.

From the standpoint of market value, Bitcoin has a real value since the market value is based on supply and demand. 
If someone is willing to pay for Bitcoin then we can say that there is a market value for Bitcoin.

From an economic standpoint, I also think that Bitcoin has real value.
Bitcoin can be used as a money transfer from one point of the globe to another point of the globe without the hassle of a third-party finance system. 


How about Bitcoins intrinsic value?   

Though many anti-Bitcoin believe that it has no intrinsic value,  many believe Bitcoin has because of these factors.
Utility
Scarcity
Marginal Cost of Production
you can read a detailed explanation here

A really interesting question about the value of Bitcoin, but in order to understand it, you need to understand what the value itself is. As for me, value is when a certain product or asset is in demand, that is, someone needs it and is at least willing to pay for it or exchange it for something else. If you put this on Bitcoin, it turns out that BTC still has value and it has its own value, which certain people are willing to pay. On the other hand, if BTC did not have all this, then the price of Bitcoin would probably be equal to zero. So in this case, we can say that Bitcoin has value and has a certain value, however, these two values ​​change periodically, which makes Bitcoin itself less predictable.

Of course it does.

1 Bitcoin is approximately worth 20 thousand US dollars which is enough to buy a decent used car everywhere in the world. Whether you say it has value or not has no meaning. The world isn't spinning around you. Maybe bitcoin is worthless to you, that's fine. Lots of other people think that way too but on the other hand, lots people people think its worth $20k right now.

The US dollar has value too. No matter how crappy it is getting, people still use it.

I wouldnt even buy into his argument here, because then the whole concept of investing can be classified as a betting instrument. Its ignoring that the whole system makes it necessary for people to invest at the moment, because there are no interest rates that are higher than inflation since a long time now. This is literally one of the goals of inflation, to make it impossible for people to "hoard"(was called saving once) money, so the economy can grow faster, which doesnt work forever as were seeing now. The attempt to criticize something without going into the causes is short sighted. People have to use an alternative Store of Value, because inflation makes this a necessity. Phrasing it like people are gambling because theyre choosing Bitcoin is pathetic. Most new forms of money, that have the perfect properties of a Store of Value, would be used for this purpose first. This doesnt make it a betting instrument and its not Bitcoins fault for rising/ decreasing in value, maybe read what a market is.

Currency is a generally accepted form of payment, usually regulated by governments. Fiat money, or normal currency, even has exchange markets and fluctuations relative to other currencies. It’s just paper.

When considering crypto currency ,there are multiple digital currencies and they fluctuate. So this is considered a market and valuable.

Bitcoin actually made the adoption rate faster. Meaning there are countries which have adopted bitcoin and are very open to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a digital asset and scarce as well, which makes it more valuable than other digital assets. With convenience and decentralised functionality Bitcoin eases international trades.

fiats utility(reasons to keep circulating and desire to pass hands) is in the laws of minimum wage and tax laws and having to price things on store shelves in the amount

the value of fiat is not backed by gold(not been case  for 50+ years)
its value derives from the minimum wage law where by an employers costs of labour is BEST case having to pay someone $7.50 for an hour of work..
they are not allowed to in that state pay their employee any less..
(ok pre-empting some rebuttals.. i know some US states have a $15 min wage and some have $10 and some have waitresses and interns at lower.. you find you lowest number and go with that number if it pleases you)


however from the employee/workers point of view of their 'cost of living' their value of the dollar is different. they want a 'living wage' value that is more like $15+ for an hour

but if you take the lowest figure. thats the underling fiat value.. (not the random numbers inbetween of variance state to state/person to person or different employee income and living costs) finding the lowest number is fiats value
(again pre-empting rebuttas, again i know individuals have different costs of living and incomes, but take the lowest number..(some use the social security/unemployment as the ultimate low))

That is dead wrong. I mean, it's correct for probably 80% of the people dealing with Bitcoin, unfortunately, but the point of buying Bitcoin should never be to get more shiat coins back. That is the mistake of high time preference people!

You are also assuming things on your own. See, many things end up getting value because more and more people end up agreeing with that idea. But that's what markets are made of.
I can give you an example that sometimes happens to me that makes me thinking just like that. Like "who decided that the word represents an object that allows you to take objects into your mouth?? Why not , or anything else"?? Note: those sets of chars are only that. Sets of chars that I put together randomly! No idea if there are words like that!

So, when you say that something has value, maybe it gets real value if more people agree with that! Someone decided, and others agreed that could be a set of chars to represent the object that allows you to carry objects into your mouth. I know that words has their own etymology, but I think you get the point.

I think the only reason why money is currency is out of the public consensus, which is we need it. When something is widely acknowledged, it builts its own power to convert messages. Gold and silver are once the currency in circulation, however, no matter how much value they possessed, they are eliminated by times from being used as currency. That is how things go all the time, and same as currency. The appearance of Bitcoin fully shows implied that the need for some cryptocurrencies is inevitable. And seeing through those years, though many bumps in the road, it is thriving from an overall view. And it will definately keep this trend in future. Though Bitcoin is not like gold or silver in the way of possessing value, it has value for sure. And the value possessed by Bitcoin will definately go up as the Growing of public consensus. 

Hint: Cash means money, maybe you should look at what it was initially designed as(whitepaper) to understand what the creator tried to achieve. See you dont have to believe its money, but this hint can maybe save you some time, because evaluating a monetary good is in complete contrast to evaluting some resource. Money is non-productive by nature, while resources are. For the success as money the monetary functions are the deciding factor.

You cant eat your money, cant drink it, cant do anything with it, except maybe wiping your ass. Wood is amazing resource and you can use it for many things, but try using it as money and you will fail hard. The irony is that any rational personal woud still prefer money over an actual resource(that can do something), because you can acquire any resource you want with it. Also some worthless paper won over gold, how can you explain it?


You should, but reality doesnt care if you just feel right and put too much emphasis on false assumptions.


This doesnt matter much for money. The commodity use of gold is what? Maybe 1 trillion a year(i didnt check an accurate number), while the market cap is over 11 trillion big. Giving us a monetary premium of 91%. Your last resort buyer wouldnt matter, if you lost 90% of your wealth. And when ellaborating money optimizing for the last resort is counterproductive, because its there to function in a civilization, in an acopalypse you will worry about resources/ survival and not money.


Its not lmao, now youre drifting in pseudo-intellectual bs. Force doesnt indicate any value, how much value does it have when you take the gun away? If i gave you 500.000$ would you refuse it, because you werent forced? Gold is a terrible medium of exchange, try to run around with 500.000$ in gold and see how safe/ comfortable it is. Try to pay for a coffee in gold and see how it well it works(hardly divisible). Have some gold coin that isnt popular and dirty and see how fungible it is. There was a practical need to overcome the limitations of gold as money, paper makes using money easier and more efficient. That politicians robbed paper money its beneficial function, doesnt mean it was adopted out of force initially. How does Bitcoin have value right now to people, without putting a gun on peoples head?  


It doesnt mean a currency cant disappear, but the new currency will still use memory prices. And Menger talked about the natural emergence of money specifically, indicating an evolution taking place, not some authoritarian that just decided one day that money had to be used. Money would emerge again, even without further government intervention, it could even survive a fall of the government. The disappearance of currencies doesnt prove these theories wrong.


Nah, price memory means the purchasing power of money isnt a circular assumption, when we keep going back to when no money existed, then we must arrive at a point where the first good to emerge as money had an objective value for something other than being used as money. When money emerges, goods will start to be priced in money and it will stay this way, even if the medium of exchange changes. Bitcoin is a good with completley inelastic supply, so any big volatility is expected, because there isnt any mechanism to stabilise it. No good has a guaranteed fixed price/exchange rate, even if its primariliy used as a medium of exchange.

Im still not satisfied with your refusal of the subjective theory of value, what value would any good have, if we didnt exist?

Money so “valuable” that people must be forced at gunpoint to use it—such wow!

It would be otiose to speculate on whether you would preach to slaves about the “value” to them of their chains, or cook up a sophistic theory deprecating the value of a pair of bolt-cutters.  Of course, when I put it that way, you will rationalize a counterargument however you want.

---

I was just now reading OP.  Musing on an ungrounded pile of abstractions without adequate empiricism.  The naïve reading of books, out of contact with reality.

OP reads as if someone decided that the U.S. dollar has value, and Bitcoin has no value—then spent some time researching ways to rationalize this conclusion.  Needless to say, it is riddled with the sorts of fallacies that some of us have seen too many times to be interested in further waste of time.

I searched all three pages for the word “petrodollar”.  Zero hits.  My, are you in for a surprise when the scam collapses.

Please advise, why are you even here?  If you seek to debate with some Bitcoiners, or maybe to preach to them under a doth-protest-too-much^* username the salvation of the Almighty Dollar, then perhaps some of the folks here will enjoy the opportunity to practise answering common fallacies.  But others of us are too busy for such diversions; and for my part, much though it will shock some of my friends, I actually agree with Nietzsche’s conclusions about Socrates.  So as for debates.

---

^* Although I see that it seems you are, or may purport to be affiliated with some website, it does not escape my notice that preaching to people under the name “reasonspace” is like saving souls for Jesus under the name “saintly_virtue”—or seeking no-escrow trade deals under the moniker of “honest_trader”.  Cf. “RationalWiki”, a propaganda site.  My own term for this:  Those names doth-protest-too-much, methinks.  By contrast, what may be inferred from my name?  I loudly brag and declare to the world that I am nobody’s, I am of nothing—I belong to zero!

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that I should have as a starting premise, "Bitcoin is money"? And do you also mean that I should not have any supporting argument(s) to prove why this as an epistemic status of "probable" or "certain"? If this is not what you mean, then perhaps you can elaborate more on what you mean.

Thank you for the quoted content. I have disagreements with the content. Here are some of them.

1. The commodity (or ornamental) value of gold ensures that there will always be a buyer of last resort. It will be the "consumer" of that gold. This means that the gold you're holding in your hands is actual wealth and not only some intermediary product that you can exchange with a willing trader for actual wealth in the future. And the fact that gold is used as a medium of exchange (in a free market) just means that the buyer of last resort is willing to forgo the gold because there is greater demand (i.e., someone willing to pay a higher price) for the gold for use as a medium of exchange.

2. Fiat's currency support isn't "memory price". It's legal tender laws, tax laws, price control laws, etc. It is the gun. I also think that loan agreements denominated in that currency also serve to motivate people to collect fiat currency. However, if the gun goes away, then I think that people will shift away from using that currency for future loan agreements. Evidence of force's support for fiat currency can be found in their disappearance from use, despite "memory prices", for countries that no longer exists (e.g., the Confederacy, South Vietnam after 1975, etc.)

3. Isn't the instability in the exchange rate for Bitcoin a good indicator that the "price memory" theory isn't working?

I think it's important to distinguish between value and price. A piece of chocolate cake from that Michelin star has a certain amount of value to you, but perhaps the price is too high for you and so you make do with an alternative that provides similar but not exactly the same value. But something must have some value for it to deserve any price. If you assign a price to something worthless (of no value) by buying it, then you will suffer the consequences if you end up being the last one to "hold the bag."

---

We are in agreement that scarcity and durability are necessary but insufficient conditions. We don't agree that only other condition (if this is indeed your position) is for people to say that it is valuable. This is the subjective theory of value that I've refuted in my original post.

I invite you to take a look at the argument map that I created to help me write the article to see the circular loop in visual form.

https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/693?token=845ecf75-edc9-42fc-9440-bfebe8d42072

In other got is to determine if something have value, we must first of all understand the term value. Value talks about worth and acceptance (that’s me keeping it simple). If we are to look at it, it doesn’t need to be backed by anything as a determinant of its worth or generally accepted by the public before we can say it has value.

Gold assumes a physical nature while cryptocurrencies takes an intangible nature and that’s okay. It doesn’t have to have a physical nature or be backed by something or generally accepted to have its value. The seller and buyer determines its value. When you buy programs or codes on the web, it doesn’t have a physical nature and yet you exchange your hard currency for it. Bitcoin is no difference and it’s still at its growth phase.

The multitude that accepts today or are aware of it today is far different from 10years ago. So it would continue until it attains a global acceptance.

If you own stock in a company, you are an owner of that company. This means the profits that the company produces belong to you. This is a value independent of whether others want to pay you money for that stock or not.

---

There's no such thing as intrinsic value. That is, there is no such thing as value that's independent of a valuer. That is, to say that something is a value, you must identify "to whom" and for "what purpose?" To say that something is an objective value, you must be able to identify the facts in reality (vs. feelings) as to why it serves that purpose for that individual.

Gold has multiple objective values. It has functional values in the form of conductor, tooth fillings, etc. But gold also has an aesthetic value too. For more on the aesthetic value of gold, please refer to this article. https://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/11/30/in-praise-of-gold-not-a-barbarous-relic-but-a-spiritual-value

---

I think that this is a great recognition of value as being dependent on a valuer. However, there is a difference between an objective value (value dependent on purpose & facts) and subjective value (value independent on facts). What this means is that just because someone considers something to be a value to them doesn't mean that it is. People can be defrauded or mistaken.

---

Math doesn't make an idea objective. Objectivity doesn't mean "using logic or math". It means "volitional adherence to reality". It means turning your mind towards reality to identify facts and use them in your evaluations. Logic (or math) is a necessary but insufficient condition for achieving objectivity.

The fact that you can be defrauded doesn't mean that facts don't exist, or you don't try to use your best judgment and perform due diligence to ensure that what you think is true actually is true. That's what it means to be objective.

Maybe there isn’t even an objective way to quantify value, even tho there’s many different kinds of values. Value is never a constant, it changes over time. Even the most stable store of value in humankind, gold, doesn’t have a fixed value, not even a market cap is ever constant. So you could ask what is real value in the first place.

Volatility indicates subjectivity, shouldn’t a „real value“ be a constant? And im not just referring to market prices here. You can write a perfect exam and get 10 different grades, depending on who evaluates you. The human mind isn’t objective, but we will be the ones to decide what has value and what not. If it wouldn’t be our subjective decisions that determine value, we wouldn’t even be here asking the question now, because we already knew.

To me Bitcoin might be priceless, to others it might be worthless. But then the sum of evalutions of all people create an average, that then determines, how much value is assigned to it at this moment in time, and from this a consensus starts to form and this thing will be chosen over things more often(the higher the average). The design behind Bitcoin is objectively superior to fiat for enabling universal trade(this is the main task of money), so we can assume more and more rational actors will deem it valuable in the future. But ofc there’s more factors on how people will evaluate it, each subjectively different and endless in variation and the sum doesn’t need to be rational.

In conclusion: it might be better to think about, if other people will find it valuable, than if the thing itself is physically valuable(even tho physical properties can influence other peoples perception), because people will form the value in the end.

Subjective value doesn’t mean that an individual can’t overvalue something, in this case their individual subjective value was higher than the average value the market assigned to it, and they lost. Which strengthens the conclusion i made. The housing crash was also caused by assigning too much subjective value into the credibility of banks and fiat, something that wasn’t deserved. Assigning subjective value isn’t free, it has real life consequences and so individuals have to constantly reassign their evaluation for things to succeed. Because this is the basis of real life decisions in the end.

The whole world can think im better than messi, but if we’re actually playing each other and he keeps beating me, this is likely to change. They can even bet money on it and loose. There is an incentive to be rational and objective, to not constantly loose. Giving trust for free can be an expensive gift, like in the housing crisis. If you trusted the market to not be easily breakable in the first place, your subjective decision was based on false assumptions.

Note that there are different kinds of values. There's market value, personal value, intrinsic value, objective value that's measured with usefulness etc. Mona Lisa does have a high value, but not necessarily intrinsic or objective. On the other hand, bitcoin does have usefulness and IMO, its objective value is higher than its market value.

Mona Liza and bitcoin is not a good analogy, in any case.

There is both a difference, and there is also a similarities between them. First of all, Mona Lisa has a value right?

It is certainly a higher value than the paint used or the paper it was painted on, it has a value more than most other paintings I assume, don't know if it is the most expensive one, and yet it is certainly not the best painting in the world by a mile, we have seen much much better ones if we are talking about talent or how hard it is, there are paintings out there even leonardo da vinci can't paint, and yet Mona Lisa worths more than them, why? What makes it more valuable if that's the case? The answer to that, is the same as why bitcoin is this much valuable.

You're wrong, because it's been 2 years and I'm using it normally as a currency. And so are millions of others. Therefore, this assertion is invalid.

That is also not true. We've developed off-chain solutions for this very purpose, such as the Lightning Network.

There's a big depends lying here. I'm buying bitcoin since the early 2020, and I can tell you that not only it has managed to store that value, but I'm also experiencing decent capital gains too. Someone who bought at $68,000 and wants to spend it currently has, definitely, not had the same luck.

This is false. I know no merchants that accept gold, except those who sell it (e.g., licensing pawnbrokers). On the other hand, bitcoin is accepted from a variety of merchants.

It's far better than fiat currency in a number of ways, few of which I've written in this very page:

I believe the question of real value is not as simple as it looks. Do computers have real value? To many people, they do, but there are also the elderly, for instance, who live well without computers and to them PCs are worthless. Does a smartphone have real value? It does if you know how to use it, and if you live in a place where you have stable access to electricity. Then there's food, which generally has value. But meat is of no value to vegans, and a pack of rice isn't of value if you are in a war zone, living underground and unable to cook on fire. And then no more abstract things, like securities, debt trading and stuff. Do they have value? Not really, they're too far from the physical things. And does fiat have value? It doesn't, it's just numbers on a screen or a bunch of banknotes.
My point is, value is negotiable and dependent on the people and the circumstances. There are plenty of people to whom Bitcoin has no value, but there are also at least dozens of millions who believe in its value and are ready to exchange it for a certain value, which is all that matters.

Fundamentally, bitcoin is not a currency, notit scalable means of payment, and it is not a stable store of value. If you ask Does Bitcoin have real value? I would answer Bitcoin fundamental value is ZERO.
Then the question arises again What exactly makes traders and investors believe Bitcoin has value? Here we need to explore and compare the nature of Bitcoin (crypto asset) with assets that are considered similar, such as gold and fiat currencies.

GOLD.
Gold has intrinsic value and can be used as a store of value so that the whole world accept gold as an investment asset. When someone buys gold, he understands very well that anyone will recognize and accept gold, because what he buys is a metal that has value.

FIAT CURRENCIES
Basically, fiat currencies like Bitcoin (crypto asset) has no intrinsic value. However, paper currency is believed to be a legal tender and a store of value because its existence is recognized by the state. So it's the country that makes paper currency worth it.

Conclusion from my post:
which determines whether or not there is value in the medium of exchange, not in the object being exchanged. The position of Bitcoin (crypto asset) is one level below fiat currencies, Let alone have intrinsic value, physical form alone does not exist. Bitcoin only has a digital form, recorded, and difficult to manipulate due to advanced blockchain technology.

Bitcoin has more then one utility.

What does the real value you mean? are you refer to the cost to mine Bitcoin? well that's complicated but you can calculate itself based on the mining rigs, the speed, the maintenance and how much the electricity you paid. However it's not the real value, the real value is decentralized, no censorship, and fast worldwide transaction.

The market law of supply and demand, and bitcoin has value because people or we use it and see it as something of value and also limited, and people use it as an investment and can also be used as a transaction tool.

If people stop using bitcoin in any form then its price will drop drastically and therefore will not earn anything.
Simple answer to that question.

That's very important to know where the real value of bitcoin comes from regardless of what kind of asset we are talking about the most important thing is supply and demand can change the value and price of everything, Imagine a share of stock from a famous company if none wants to buy it the seller should decrease the price and in the end, this will be worthless because of having no buyers and there can be the opposite of this story. Still, regarding bitcoin, because of many factors, the demand changes very fast and this can make the price a little bitcoin stable too.

I'm not anti-taxation, you're just too gormless to understand me correctly. I'm anti-fascist, and become aggravated when I read phrases like:
And:

If you think the government is consisted of somewhat Gods who can enforce their sentiments unquestionably, restrict people arbitrarily and encroach every kind of civil right, then you're as anti-freedom as is humanly possible. It's justified to not see any value if you don't value freedom, privacy - human rights in general. But that's just your opinion of how this world works; and you can keep it, thanks.

There are millions of other people who don't think quite as you do. Those who value these virtues acknowledge why bitcoin is valuable. I don't gain censorship resistance whenever I use a credit card; the transaction can be reversed if the merchant is disapproved from the government. I don't gain privacy (or even pseudo-privacy) whenever I use a fiat currency online; financial institutions sell you out the sooner that is possible. I'm not protected by arbitrary inflation with fiat currency. You do get these with bitcoin; you have your rights respected.

And that's before we even begin on how it works more efficiently than the banking system. I can now send money across the world, with no intermediaries, nearly instantly, with nearly zero fees in a privacy-oriented way. If you still find no value, you're willingly ignoring the benefits. The problem lies with you.

The same reasoning can easily be applied to bitcoin too, since for some people acquiring bitcoin is an end to itself and not the means to an end, such as to gain wealth in the future. People may enjoy this feeling of being able to control their money through cryptographic keys, or they may like the fact that their share in the total supply of money either stays the same or increases, that it cannot be diluted and taken away by powerful corporations.


Things without which humans can't live are, by definition, objectively valuable. But they remain objectively valuable as long as in abundance. Once these objectively valuable things become scarce, humans start to value them subjectively, basing their reasoning on current circumstances. For example, water in the desert is valued more than that in places near rivers with fresh water. The objective value of water always remains the same - it helps you quench your thirst - but the subjective value fluctuates considerably.

I agree with you, because many countries that made bitcoin legalized in their various countries came to discovered that bitcoin has a great value like their fiat money. Many people has achieved a lot of income from bitcoin investment which many people are still planning to achieve more, because the price just dropped down to $20,000 for those that missed the opportunity to buy bitcoin to use this opportunity to buy more of bitcoin and hold for the price to increase higher before they can sell to make a passive income.

Putting side the utility of gold (e.g., tooth fillings) and diamonds (e.g., cutting devices), art is fuel for the soul. Gold and diamonds are used to create objects that gives you motivation to do more. You enjoy art (and music) as an end to itself and not just as a means to an end. This idea of things being consumed as an end in itself applies to many things. Take for example a piece of steak. You can eat any cooked piece of meat to get protein for you body (means to an end). Yet you are willing to work more to get more money to spend on a nice piece of steak in a romantic restaurant. This is an example of fuel for the soul. Man is not just an animal. He is an animal with a *volitional* consciousness. The fuel is to give his violation to do more.



I invite you to take a look at this argument map  that I've created to help me write this article. I look forward to feedback on additional arguments for why Bitcoin has value that is not dependent on circular logic or invalid theories of value.

https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/905?token=1e709bb0-c732-4077-85a4-e0a64af89098


I disagree. There is the objective theory of value. That is, that which is valuable to your life is substantiated by objective fact. Take for example water. Water, in certain quantities, is objectively valuable to your life. You can pretend that it's not all you want, but you will be dead after a certain amount of time if you do not consume something that has water in it. This is an objective fact not subject to any subjective whim.

---

Odd. I would've made the assumption that if someone wrote what I wrote that the writer is anti-taxation and anti-fiat currency. However, the fact that I am anti-taxation and anti-fiat currency doesn't mean that I am oblivious to the fact that I must give the government those pieces of paper to live.

I am also not oblivious to the fact that ANY currency requires the sanction of the government. That is, the government can easily make that currency next to useless by banning it. This means contracts denominated in that currency is unenforceable. You cannot build large enterprises relying on unenforceable contracts. All that you can build are criminal organizations where you need to hire your own mercenaries to enforce your contracts.

Bitcoin, even if it has some value that I've yet been unable to identify, is not a solution to government force. The only solution is philosophical in nature. But that's a different matter all together.

Yes, the value is generated out of trust. If someone interested in bitcoin believe that spending certain amount on bitcoin is worthy, they'll pay for it. In general it is possible only out of the trust. The limited supply and the halving features increase the demand. This means when the supply is limited and unable to fulfill the demands the price will increase.

The usage on multiple needs too generate value for bitcoin. All it started as a giveaway token and slowly it came out through different forms to reach the present value. Here Laszlo Hanyecz have a important role in giving value to bitcoin.

you're not going to be very well received by alot of people here on the forum but you make a very well reasoned intelligent set of points. and i think they are valid. i couldn't have said them better myself.

that's until the countries start making it a crime to "launder" money and not report what you're doing. if you keep ignoring their rules then, you become a criminal.

Finite would be something that is not sub-dividable. But the thing about bitcoin is, they can keep subdividing it for as long as they want to. If need be they could oneday subdivide it into sub-satoshis. Milli, micro, pico, etc. So it really isn't finite in that sense. You can't really divide the us dollar into something less than a penny. If bitcoin couldn't be divided into anything smaller than a satoshi then it would be "finite".


What type of human labor does bitcoin need ? I'm not aware of any. But it does require electricity but not to produce it but to secure it. Not sure the electricity expense is in line with the market value of it though. I guess that's another story.

Good one! You've identified all the problems with bitcoin in a nutshell. This 4th reason is maybe the biggest problem bitcoin really has. That's why for example it used to be $60,000+ and now it is only around $20,000. it's not backed up by anything.

That's right and Theranos and similar companies cannot be compared to bitcoin. Bitcoin has no CEO, no front man to make promises. It cannot lie about its performance, we all see it and can analyze the blockchain if we went.
We weren't persuaded by anyone to invest in bitcoin, we did it because we saw value and uniqueness in it.

OP, what is "real value"?
People gave you an example of diamonds and gold, but there were many more similar cases in history. People were using seashells as a medium of exchange which proves that bitcoin doesn't have to be valuable to be used. Its use and trust in the system makes it valuable.

What persuaded me to support bitcoin was mainly decentralization. I had enough of banks deciding what I can buy and reporting my finances to various authorities. I want to be able to travel with my money without having to confess and explain myself every time. I want to be able to spend on whatever I choose to because it's my hard earned money we're talking about.

And after stating all that is contained in OP, you expect usto just dump bitcoin or cryptocurrencies and then, move on with our lives with fiat and be okay with it. By the way,

Isn't what is contained in the quote above contractive? Looking at point 4 and 2 as at above, following your introductory statement.
I think you @OP seems to attach value of to what is tangible and have got government backings. Anything other than that is banned to fail from your view point as I see it. I may be wrong and stands to be corrected but, that's what I can deduce from that and I don't seem to agree.

Intangible things have value too and the value to a commodity is largely based on acceptance by the masses. Perhaps I refuse to buy at your "Ask" price, it simply means I don't value it as much and you refused to sell at my "Bid" price simply means, you value it far more than I do value it. Yeah, demand and supply sets the price but, no government backings doesn't mean failure.

I don't think that existence of fraud disproves subjective theory of value. From the point of view of defrauded people, they are having a good deal, and if they knew the truth, they would change their evaluation.

Stocks can be analyzed by looking at performance of the company, state of the market and so on, and then calculating how much should they be worth, based on expected profit, but if a company lies about the state of its operations, you will get defrauded, even though you used math to calculate "objective" value.

It’s not circular your assumptions are just off. The two criterias for a store of value are:

1. Scarcity(Supply relative to other goods).
2. Durability(No loss in functionality with repeated use).

These two alone don’t determine if the market will assign value to it, or if this will be used as money over everything else, but you can determine how good of a store of value it is with these. But to be actually used as one, it needs actual use by the market, and for this other conditions need to be met first.

There’s a good theory of what actually becomes money by carl menger, he noticed that different goods have different degrees of saleability(marketability, how easy it is to do trade with a good), the most saleable good becomes the dominant money naturally, because it will become easier and easier to exchange with it. (That’s why fiat replaced gold).

Money wasn’t founded by the state, it came into play naturally before all of this. There’s different degrees of quality of money, and if a central authority starts abusing it, it looses its beneficial function for everyone(Fiat). These are things menger predicted generations ago.

Your toxic waste is scarce and durable, but terribly hard to do trade with, so the market won’t use it as money and it doesn’t get more and more value assigned to it. Bitcoin is scarce and durable, and becomes easier and easier to do trades with over time(the more the acceptability rises), so it’s on its way to become more dominant money, and will have more value assigned to it over time. We’re still in the first stages, that’s why the price will keep exploding, until it’s relatively stable.

Bitcoin is becoming the highest quality money we have, and all that naturally, no state is needed for this. If you don’t get why it’s winning, you didn’t compare it to other forms of money yet.

The US dollar is not adherent to the gold standard anymore. There is no value to USD other than the U.S. government willing to support its usage. You can only trust USD as much as you can trust the U.S. government, which is to say very little.

Bitcoin is supported by the free market, so it isn't actually any different from USD in your example. The U.S. government has already diluted the value over 90 percent since the creation of the federal reserve some number of decades ago. If value is siphoned off so quickly with a guaranteed decrease in purchasing power yearly due to inflation, how could you articulate that USD has real value while Bitcoin doesn't?

If I can go into the market and trade my Bitcoin for goods and services, it has value.

But, it's not scarcity that makes it valuable; it's the scheduled inflation, the transparent monetary policy, part of which is scarcity. Bitcoin could, normally, operate with tail emission which would mean, it'd inflated to infinity. It's the absence of arbitrary inflation that matters.

Don't take this personally, but the way you've formed how this world works is honestly gloomy and hopeless the least. It's not a surprise you don't find value in bitcoin, because you neither find value in freedom, privacy and censorship-resistance either.

Fortunately for the rest of us, this world is consisted of people who perceive things in a different way than you do. There's an admiring number of people who disagree with your assertion. Bitcoin is, therefore, valuable for those.

With the emergence of CBDC the government will become more and more powerful in controlling us, from the CBDC they can control all the supply and track all of us. With fiat, it can be a bit more difficult to manage or control the finances of each individual but with CBDC, they have full control of our finances, what we buy, how much we hold, and where we send money...For those looking for privacy, CBDC will be much worse than fiat.

Interesting topic and arguments. To me something has value if it can help people do things that they can't do right now, or it can help people do things that they can already do now, but in a much more efficient way.

Some examples:

- the car has value. Yes, people could go around with horses before, but the car allows people to move more efficiently;

- the iPhone has value. Yes, people could make phone calls with mobile devices before, but iPhone was the first incredibly advanced device that expanded what people could do via mobile.

What about Bitcoin. Bitcoin seen at the early stage definitely had value in its electronic currency version. People at that time could transfer money online (wire transfer, maybe PayPal), but there was no way to transfer money peer to peer all around the world almost instantly. Now there are tons of apps that allow the same thing: Venmo, Revolut, etc. Yes, it's true that Bitcoin allows you to transfer money without the need to create accounts on other platform, it's true that nobody can stop you from using your Bitcoins, etc, but I would not say that this changes the transfer of money much more efficiently...quite the contrary.

Then we are left with something that definitely has a lot of potential (think about the blockchain), but we are still missing, in my opinion, a true user case that will improve how we do things more efficiently.

Your first two points muchly applies to the fiat currency economy while i so much go for the third and fourth point in which i think they are best applicable for bitcoin, what you see in bitcoin may not necessarily be what others exactly see in it but bitcoin value remains valuable, appreciative and profitable enough for everyone who key into using it the right way, it has been used for store of value, why is because anything that has the tendencies and capability to rise in due time is worth investing on, while its acceptability is global and fully decentralized.

This is the only condition that you need for something to have value and a valid basis too.OP going on giving a detailed explanation,but do you think most people will care? If so,you wouldn't have see many people try to earn,trade or invest in bitcoin.
Even if people can be mistaken about value,it doesn't change the fact that they have valued bitcoin.

I completely agree. I was talking about the economic value.


I've picked art because its economic value is questioned by many. (And Bitcoin value keeps being questioned, as you can see).
I cannot argue that houses do hold economic value, but those value is not questioned (or at least not as heavily as art).

NeuroticFish  i agree with your example..im just adding more context

this is more of a reply to 'reasonspace' to add more detail to NeuroticFish's  mention of art having value

Art has value(economic). the acquisition cost people wont sell below. but the next auction PRICE is not the value.
art has values(aesthetic/desire/demand/provenance) ..dont confuse the (economic) value with values(the aesthetic/desire/provenance)

values and value are different categories.

think of the sentiment values(aesthetic/desire/demand/provenance) of art as the values(utility/function/features) of houses and bitcoin.
the values. help cause some speculation of the price above the economic VALUE of something comparative on the market.

the values(aesthetics/desire/demand) of a van gogh increase the price above the value of a lesser known artist.

yes people can be duped into buying things that they see as having values(aesthetics/utility/desire/demand) and pay a premium for it. and then get slammed when they see the values are none existent. like the theranos company that faked values(utility) of diagnosing hundreds o diseases with a single drop of blood.

but the underlying value(economic) is not the same number as the price paid due to the values(sentiment of the utility/benefit/features aesthetics)

value is not found from those 4 things..
bitcoin is more then a currency.. bitcoin has function and feature of utility beyond just being a currency
bitcoin is not just the unit of account. its also the tool for the unit. a tool that can do many things


people trade houses.. but that does not mean a house is just a currency. a house does more then get traded

houses are not fungible. different houses are treated differently and not easily convertible. there is no like-for-like swap
houses are not divisible.
houses are not easy to exchange

so houses fail the first 3 rules too

..
bitcoin does condition 1
1btc is 1btc. there are mixers that swap 1btc for 1btc. every transaction 'destroy' a utxo of an amount and create a new utxo of another amount with a different owner. so it passes condition 1
yep you can easily convert 2 utxo of 0.5btc to be 1 whole btc. thats the most basic feature of the bitcoin blockchain.
so it passes condition 1

bitcoin does condition 2.. there are 8 decimals. it can be easily divided 100,000,000 times
so it passes condition 2
.
bitcoin does condition 3
its easy to exchange. every transaction on the blockchain is an exchange of ownership.
so it passes condition 3.

as for long term value
.. stop looking at the PRICE.
when you buy a house or gold. there are 2 lines you need to look at.. one is not easy to spot.

take the real estate market.
dont just look at the house price.. instead look at the houses in the region to compare.. (real estate buzzword: comps) .. and then evaluate the house price in comparison to see if the PRICE is good and near VALUE(lowest comp) or if its being sold at a premium(above/at highest comp)

a house PRICE is not the value. the regions 'comps' is the value and although you might buy a house above 'comps'(value) the store of value still exists via a underlying value everyone in the region refuses to sell below.
(the bottom line cheapest 'comps')

even in the housing market. dont expect guarantee house price profits.. because the market can rescind and return to the lowest comps of recent years. buying a house at a premium does not make it great value to get great ROI sooner.

bitcoin has a 'comp' too
take the lowest cost to mine on the planet. the cost no one else can acquire bitcoin for..
thats the 'comp' value.
then take the periodic ATL (the all time LOW.. not the high.. the LOW) of every say 2-3 years (normally 4 year cycle)
and thats the value line below the price.

you can use this line to then evaluate if the PRICE is near VALUE or if its at premium

..
if you think bitcoin has no value then you must think house prices have no value.
bitcoin is an asset. its more then a traded property. it has function it has utility it has features that make it have use.


bitcoin can do things far easier then fiat.
you can move value between addresses without needing to request a bank authorise it.
you can set up an offshore wealth store without needing lawyers, business registrations, bank account registrations
you can set up family trust funds without bank managers, lawyers and contracts with middlemen
plus many many more things you can do with bitcoin

You are wrong.

Art holds value, although many don't recognize that (remember that for some a banana duct-taped to a wall is art, remember how expensive is an original painting, when a copy looks just as good). And it's not at all easy to exchange.
Imho gold is so expensive not because its utility, but because of its scarcity and for being hoarded.
In the history people have been using shells basically in the same way as (gold) coins or bitcoin.

You seem to be praising the modern money. You know that it's only printed paper (or whatever) that has value only because the central bank of your country says so. I won't insist on the fact that they're lying and because of inflation the value you're paying for that paper (i.e. work done) is not the same as the value you receive for that paper when you spend it. But what if your country's central bank, for various reasons, cannot honor its word? I know, it's not very likely, but imho it proves my point:

something holds value if you and a big enough number of other people sees it as valuable.

As simple as that. And yeah, Bitcoin meets this condition.

You are wrong.

Certain form of waste is scarce? If scarce, that means people are demanding for it, which makes the waste useful and it will be costly because of the demand for it. But, a waste is not costly, or even not useful (have not cost) because people do not demanding for it.

If you meant this, you also meant that the law of demand and supply is wrong, which means you only want to change part of economics to your own idea of wrong.

Neither gold nor diamonds, for example, help sustain human life but they, for some reason, have maintained their value for thousands of years.

Are you talking about P2P trades between independent individuals? Because otherwise using different fiat on/off-ramps still requires interaction with the banking infrastructure controlled by governments. Bitcoin allows users to make exchanges trustlessly without asking permission or involvement of intermediaries. You can do the same with cash but only locally, whereas with bitcoin it is possible to conduct international trades.

Its finite supply is protected by a decentralized distributed consensus and this is what really matters here.


Bitcoin doesn't have value because it is mined, bitcoin is mined only because it has value.

People expect they will be able to exchange bitcoin for goods in the future because money itself is only useful when exchanged for something else.


Today, bitcoin is mostly seen as a store of value or nascent store of value that gradually accrues its value. When it is established as a store of value and its price stabilizes, it will be seen as a medium of exchange and unit of account.


Never before have we seen an asset that is both digital and scarce. The very fact that bitcoin is essentially a discovery of digital scarcity makes it more valuable than other digital assets.



I agree that the labor theory is fallacious and misleading. But again, "Bitcoin doesn't have value because it is mined, bitcoin is mined only because it has value."

You contradict yourself. If the labor theory is wrong, then the only explanation of the nature of value is that it is purely subjective.

TL;DR Bitcoin is based on proof of work, whereas the dollar is based on proof of war.

True, it seems a more relevant question for 2010 than for 2022. I don't know what the OP means by "real" value, but the price at which we are moving and the adoption today indicates that it does.

It seems to me that he is implicitly following the argument that it is a bubble, like the tulip bubble, something that has already been dismantled a thousand times.

Well, in the first place for 12 years now where Bitcoin started do you think Bitcoin has no value?
I don't know what your trying to point out here dude. Aren't you wondering why all over the world and even the other
bigger companies adopted the concept of bitcoin? Why other countries like Japan, Korea, Singapore, Russia, Europe, and
in the Philippines are very open into Bitcoin? does Bitcoin do you think has no value for you?

Depends on whom you ask. If you ask me, yes. If you ask someone who is currently invested in Stock, they will say something different. No one likes change so for now, Bitcoin and other crypto-assets are just experimental assets that are in the hands of the developer to mold and make the best out of it. Once we have something which will make a huge impact using Bitcoin, then only people will realize its importance. As per the real value, it's around $20.3k as of now.

It contains many better features and more convenience than fiat currency. It's deflationary and do you actually think it has no value?

If you think it has no value, let's fill your bag with fiat currency and stay away from Bitcoin. In addition, more important, if you stay away from Bitcoin, you must not touch any alternative cryptocurrencies or CBDCs.

CBDC is a worse form of fiat currency because it will bring more convenience for governments, increase their intensive works to print more fiat. With CBDC, they can mint it and this process is easier than printing.

One reason that has not been given, but may be the actual reason why many people buy and hold Bitcoin is its use as a betting instrument. That is, you buy it paying X dollars today in the hope that you will get >X dollars when you sell it at some time in the future. Of course, if it has no other value than that of a betting instrument, then this is really a game of "holding the bag" with the last people out getting screwed.

Bitcoin has more than one utility. Initially, people can think Bitcoin as nothing, then as a cryptocurrency, an asset, store of value, payment method but in future, it will be used for many use cases.

It will mature like the Internet. Nowadays, people use Internet very naturally and they don't mind to know what is the Internet. In future, they will use Bitcoin without a question, what is Bitcoin? Does Bitcoin has real value?

To end the fund on Bitcoin real value, I invite people to spend time and read: https://endthefud.org/money

Many people treat Bitcoin as if it’s a value. People trade a lot of money to buy Bitcoins. People spend money to manage their Bitcoins. People spend time to learn about Bitcoins. Given how much time and money are being spent to buy, manage, and learn about Bitcoins; it makes sense to get an answer to the question, “Is Bitcoin a real value?” That is, is it something that helps sustain human life and is to be pursued for that reason?

In my research, I’ve identified four reasons that people give for why they consider Bitcoin to be a value.

The first reason is it’s useful as a type of currency. In fact, Bitcoin’s biggest value proposition is that it can be used as an alternative to fiat currency. This supposedly gives users more freedom than they would otherwise have. For example, if someone in China wants to trade their yuans for dollars without having to deal with governmental control over the banking infrastructure, they can trade yuans for Bitcoins and then trade those Bitcoins for dollars.

The second reason is that it’s finite. This means users should be protected from a third-party (i.e., the government) creating an unlimited number of additional Bitcoins, thus, diluting its value.

The third reason is that it costs energy in the form of human labor and electricity to produce. This can be referred to as the labor theory of value.

The fourth reason is that people believe it’s a value. This can be referred to as the subjective theory of value.

But I’ve found these reasons to be invalid.

First, the fact that Bitcoin can be used as a type of currency cannot justify its value. For something to be useful as a type of currency, it must satisfy all the following conditions:
1. It must be fungible.
2. It must be easily divisible.
3. It must be easy to exchange.
4. It must be a long-term stored value.

Bitcoin does meet the first three conditions.

The fourth condition means it must already be considered a value before it can be used as a currency. If there isn’t independent support for its having value, the claim that Bitcoin has value is circular. See below:
1. Bitcoin is a value because it can be used as a currency.
2. Bitcoin can be used as a currency because it is a [long-term stored] value.

Second, the fact that Bitcoin is finite doesn’t by itself make it a value. Scarcity does not determine whether something is a value or not. Scarcity only determines the price of something that is already determined to be a value because of another reason. For example, certain forms of toxic waste may be scarce but that doesn’t mean the waste is a value.

Third, the labor theory of value is wrong. That is, the fact that something costs energy (human or machine) to produce doesn’t make it a value. Digging a hole and refilling it again consumes energy but doesn’t create anything of value.

Fourth, the subjective theory of value is wrong. People can be defrauded. Theranos is a recent example of this. People can also be mistaken about value. The housing crash or the numerous failed investments in start-ups are clear examples of this. When people are defrauded or are mistaken, this means their belief in something being a value is wrong. Just because a lot of people believe that something is a value doesn’t make it so.

For something to be a value, the reason(s) must be real. Let’s use the US dollar as an example of something that has a real value. The US is a society where producers specialize and trade their products with one another to get what they need to survive. The US government requires traders to give them US dollars whenever a trade occurs (i.e., taxes). This requirement is forced at the point of a gun. The US dollar is, at its core, a type of ticket that you must give to the government to allow you to live. That makes the US dollar valuable to your life.

While it’s true that the US government can dilute the purchasing power of the US dollar, that doesn’t mean that it has no real value right now. A potential is not the same thing as an actual. As of now, the US government still exists, the massive capital infrastructure under its jurisdiction still exists, and its ability to tax trades between organizations or people who use this capital infrastructure is still strong. This is the basis for the US dollar’s real value.

Bitcoin has no such basis or any other basis. Without a valid basis to justify why Bitcoin has real value, the proper default position to take is to assume that Bitcoin has no real value.