TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
The problem with the detractors of bitcoin in these discussions as I see it, is the continous use of misinformation, misrepresentation of other posters comments to try fudge the topic being discussed.
Just some obs;
1. I have read fpalbs Key Post on bitcoin and nowhere does it say that bitcoin is worth $20,000 as implied in the OP of this topic which purports to summarize previous discussions.
2. There is a difference between something in a bubble and something having zero value. The two are not always the same.
3. Intrinsic value. The arguement is pushed that bitcoin has no intrinsic value. It appears that this is based on it not having EPS or p/e ratios? Yet, simultaneously im told, an apple has instrinic value. I agree, the intrinsic value of an apple is its use for providing sustenance as a food source. But thats it, that is its intrinsic value. We can try monetize that intrinsic value, but how that is done is subjective and the monetary price calculated is also subjective.
Bitcoins intrinsic value is its use to hold and transfer money outside of the centralised monetary system on a trustless blockchain. Thats it, that is its intrinsic value. We can try all sorts of ways to put a monetary value, and consider all sorts of factors to do so, but all of that is wholly subjective.
4. Ive read Krugmans 'bitcoin is evil' piece, and while he is highly skeptical of its use, to the point of being almost dismissive, nowhere does he state that it has zero value.
5. There is a strange tendency for the ABC's to constantly refer to the economists for guidance and opinion on bitcoin. Fair enough, but economists are generally as clueless about the future as anyone else (this is evident when you listen to various economics and all have different outlooks about the economy - they cant all be right?).
Economists are best placed to analyze after the fact information. The blockchain is technological, bitcoin is a manifestation from that technology.
Why are economists regarded so highly here?
Just some obs;
1. I have read fpalbs Key Post on bitcoin and nowhere does it say that bitcoin is worth $20,000 as implied in the OP of this topic which purports to summarize previous discussions.
2. There is a difference between something in a bubble and something having zero value. The two are not always the same.
3. Intrinsic value. The arguement is pushed that bitcoin has no intrinsic value. It appears that this is based on it not having EPS or p/e ratios? Yet, simultaneously im told, an apple has instrinic value. I agree, the intrinsic value of an apple is its use for providing sustenance as a food source. But thats it, that is its intrinsic value. We can try monetize that intrinsic value, but how that is done is subjective and the monetary price calculated is also subjective.
Bitcoins intrinsic value is its use to hold and transfer money outside of the centralised monetary system on a trustless blockchain. Thats it, that is its intrinsic value. We can try all sorts of ways to put a monetary value, and consider all sorts of factors to do so, but all of that is wholly subjective.
4. Ive read Krugmans 'bitcoin is evil' piece, and while he is highly skeptical of its use, to the point of being almost dismissive, nowhere does he state that it has zero value.
5. There is a strange tendency for the ABC's to constantly refer to the economists for guidance and opinion on bitcoin. Fair enough, but economists are generally as clueless about the future as anyone else (this is evident when you listen to various economics and all have different outlooks about the economy - they cant all be right?).
Economists are best placed to analyze after the fact information. The blockchain is technological, bitcoin is a manifestation from that technology.
Why are economists regarded so highly here?