Topic: Why The Fair Price Of Bitcoin Is $0 (Read 2558 times)

The next question is volume of trade of specific coin, your friend is less likely to get back $1000 from the feathercoins than bitcoin. Alt coins are much more risky to price manipulation

So, you're completely ignoring first mover advantages and network effect?

I could make five million sites just like amazon.com with very similar properties to Amazon.com, yet only Amazon.com will succeed.

*YAWN*

I might be misinterpreting your definition of "hacked", but I still disagree.

First off, using it as a store of value is irrelevant; transfer of value is exactly the scenario in which a 51% attack (or a probabilistic 30% attack or so forth) matters. Once the coins are in your wallet and buried hundreds of blocks down, reorgs are not really useful to an attacker except as an act of terrorism.

Second off, a lower-hashpower, lower-confirmation-time blockchain (e.g. nearly every altcoin in existence right now) is more likely to reorg in regular use, which means it's easier to claim (while wearing your mining hat) that it was a bug or an error rather than a deliberate 51% attack to facilitate a double-spend.

Well, there is one thing can be fairly accurately measured. And thats the amount in fiat currencies backing bitcoin directly via buy orders in exchanges.
Currently there are about $35M worth of buy orders on Mt. Gox. Gox trades about a quarter of all bitcoins so for a ballpark estimate assume it also holds 25% of all fiat backing BTC via buy orders.
So we get about ~$140M backing backing ~12M BTC. No matter how many BTC you have, it is impossible to sell more than $140M worth of BTC currently.
Or, on average ~$12/BTC. Thats the average everyone would get per coin if everyone sold out right now.
So, basicly what a BTC was worth about a year ago ...

At first glance to the untrained eye, this idea would seem logical and make sense.  However, taking a look at gold, we can see that it is one of the most precious metals, yet it doesn't necessarily have the most usefulness nor rarity out of existing metals.  Why? because the masses acknowledge it, and it is a snowball effect that is hard to break.  Bitcoin is similar, but much more fragile.

Nothing has intrinsic value.  Much like smell or taste or beauty, the value of a thing exists inside the brains of humans, not in the thing itself.

Yes it was $0 on the launch day and a few days from then. Once the first few groups of people read about it, used it, they started valuing it.
I have no idea how this dude comes to a fair price of $0 with some random math equations out of an economics text book.
Current Economics is voodoo science at best. These are the same kind of acads who like to simply everything and model regular people  as rational agents.

Hmm, I have to disagree here.  Just because I spend a million dollars to excavate clay from the ground doesn't make it valuable.

That bar of gold isn't worth $400 because it took X number of dollars to mine it.  Rather, its value is what prompted a business to mine it for a profit, taking expenses into account.  If a profit can't be made, it doesn't get mined.

And it's interesting that you use gold as an example here, because this is precisely what we see in the gold market.  It takes more and more money to extract gold from the ground.  The easy pickins are long gone.  So, if someone wants gold, they will have to pay a premium because for someone to mine it, you have to spend that much more.  But make no mistake, it isn't the act of mining that makes it valuable .. it is the scarcity and expectation of future value that incentivizes the miner to mine for a profit.  You could blow a billion dollars trying to find a perfectly square rock .. and let's say you find it.  Is that perfectly square rock worth the money squandered to find it?

My point, simply stated .. is that value is an illusion.

Imagine if bitcoins were backed by a hard asset like gold or megawatt-hours.  They would only be as valuable as their underlying asset.  People tend to like this because it limits inflation.  However, there are downsides to it.  If the market is flooded with gold due to a better refining process or there is a breakthrough in energy production, your currency crashes.  As crazy as it sounds, it is better to have a currency insured by nothing more than a protocol.  

OP, please watch again the Matrix movie on what is real and what is imaginary, could help a tiny bit

The fair price of Bitcoin is zero dollars.

Because eventually there will be no more dollar, but there will be bitcoins.

The bolded part.. thank you for that. My feelings exactly.

My response is to the article, not to the OP and discussion that followed.  They are two separate things and I decided to leave the latter as there are plenty doing a good enough job refuting the OP's points.  This refers to Eric Tymoigne:

Rarely has one who 'knows' so much understood so little!

Greenspan couldn't get his head around 'no intrinsic value' either but at least he didn't take forever to get to it!

'Bitcoin is supposed to be this and here's a complex equation that proves it isn't this therefore Bitcoin is rubbish'!

This is a classic, even beautiful illustration of how those stuck in incompatible economic paradigms will be the last to accept this thing simply works!

Ok, well, then that makes sense. Value within a relative time perceived.
The value of bitcoin might be $1000 today, but in 1 week, $100 because there are many other alternative cryptos around to "fill in the gaps".
And please do not assume i'm a crypto alt promoter. I own only btc at this time.

Yes, the pager was valuable for a few short years. It sold hundreds of millions and now, nobody has one anymore, because all phones have them built in, kind of. So, it's been made obsolete. Bitcoins may not be far off from that.

I can accept the rest of what you said pretty easily, but the part I bolded gives me pause.

Where do you draw the line between 'smaller groups' and 'MOST people'? Based on what you said, virtually nothing has an established value. I am certain, for instance, that if I brought a one ounce gold coin to 10,000 random people, one at a time and asked them what they would pay for it, I would get wildly different answers. A man in kenya might offer me two goats, a man on wall-street might offer me $1300. If 'most people agree' is the requirement, then no, Bitcoin doesn't have an established value.

I think what is much more relevant though, is the agreed upon value that most people who actually own Bitcoins, and those who wish to, have reached.

Why would it matter what somebody who doesn't own, or even want to own Bitcoins thinks the value is?

My first response, comparing Bitcoin to early telephones seems to address your point.

Thank you.
  Two people can establish value easily. I can say I want to pay you $5 million to dig 2 holes in my backyard, and you can agree to that. I can pay you an IOU for 5 Million dollars. Did we just create 5 Million dollars in debt? Yes! But does that debt have real value? Not much, in the realistic marketplace of commercial paper. It;s usually discounted by 90% or so. Commercial paper can sell at a 90% discount on the open markets.

So, established value is what MOST people agree something is worth, whereas accepted value would have more to do with agreed upon values between smaller groups of people.
Magic the Gathering cards have some agreed upon value between collectors, but are those established market values?
  As long as there are collectors for those cards, yes. So, it's very relative, and just because the cards are worth $10,000 to some people, they are not worth at to most people and that card will NOT get you a tank of gas in Texas if your car is stuck in the desert. But a dozen dollars will get you that because it is widely accepted AT THAT VALUE.

Now, the card is made of paper and ink, and so far, THAT IS ALL it's established value is the value of the paper and ink.
But gold has some more value in tha tit can be used, so it has a bottom, of sorts, and some top, too. But bitcoins do not have a top or a bottom. No values based on anything.

In court cases, in order to get a value for a settlement. one must state what they lost. Everything is factored and itemized.
 If you lost your car, there is a general market value for it, and also whatever was in it, and maybe the investment into it.
 If you were robbed, each item has some value in the market place.
 if you were damaged, your physical goods cost a certain amount to replace.

But with bitcoin, there is no "established" value for it. It is valued at whatever someone paid for it, x what they want to make from it when they sell it.

If it costs you $10 to mine 1000 coins you sold them for $100 because it costs you $10. If you mined them and it costs you $10,000 for the miner, you sold at no less than $1000 because you needed to . That is relative value not established value.

That's what I mean.  

is scamcoins the new monopoly money? 

I agree with the first point, and that's why people are prepared to pay more for Bitcoin than say, the equivalent share of Feathercoin.

But I wouldn't go so far as saying its "fair price" is $0... it's like saying "hey, an online payment gateway only has any value if tonnes of places accept it... and that's why the value of paypal is $0"

On another note, say something with genuine improvements on Bitcoin come along, like Peercoin or Zerocoin, the improvements are not going to be so dramatic that every vendor in the world switches at once.

So if in some distant future when some new cryptocurrency comes out that solves some huge problem that cannot be solved with Bitcoin, the price of Bitcoin will still not suddenly drop to zero; people will take their time switching, because all the benefits of Bitcoin will still exist, and it will still be the most widely used.

Yes, but market forces may be reality to some people, but that is the same as federal reserve dollar IOUs. I'm talking about what is REAL, and what is imaginary and constructed from the hopeful thoughts and dreams of our competitive capitalistic currency dominated society structure.

When reality sets in....  all those who were hopeful, must come back to reality, and realize that there is no real value in numbers and computational data. It can be used to convey currency or value, by encryption, but it is not currency or value, inherently. Most people here failed at Money 101, I can state that with certainty.

Sorry, that was an overreaction. Define 'established value' for me, I must be missing something here.

No fuck you, suck my dick.
Now can we actually get some communication done?