I disagree with your rationale and I disagree with the notion that Satoshi has engaged in Circular Reasoning. The exchange occurred on bitcointalk - a discussion board not dissimilar in structure to this one. It was an open, public discussion. "Worries", "resigns", "scepticism", admission of btc having a 'fatal flaw', "circular reasoning" - these are all items that you have decided to interpret. There is no bona fide evidence that this is Satoshi's thinking.Certainly if someone accused me of making a circular argument I would take it as a put down. Satoshi resigns herself to accepting that the only hay to achieve that Holy Grail of "value" is to use a circular argument.
That may be from whereever you sourced it. However, in the original posting on bitcointalk it is NOT bolded.(BTW the bold was in the original Wiki and was not inserted to promote my Worldview.)
Ok let's agree to disagree on our read of the Japanese mind.I disagree with your rationale and I disagree with the notion that Satoshi has engaged in Circular Reasoning. The exchange occurred on bitcointalk - a discussion board not dissimilar in structure to this one. It was an open, public discussion. "Worries", "resigns", "scepticism", admission of btc having a 'fatal flaw', "circular reasoning" - these are all items that you have decided to interpret. There is no bona fide evidence that this is Satoshi's thinking.
We are going through a period of price discovery for a technology that is still being developed and where there is no precedent for pricing of same. Once again, you don't seem to be taking into consideration that you are making judgements on a technology that is as yet not fully developed/matured. I have an open mind (and I'm open to the possibility that Brendan may be right on the money) as regards where that pricing will end up - that's the answer to your question. Nobody will be able to provide you with an answer on this that you will be satisfied with (aside from the one you wish to believe)....you'll just have to wait and see how it all pans out.
Isn't that the same with Gold?
It has limited real world uses and none of those use cases couldn't be supplanted by another material.
Owning gold generates no income stream.
You can buy it and sell it, jewelers manufacture products with it and sell them on, medical co's use gold in production of goods and sell them. These are only a few of the uses of gold that produce an income stream. So, you're wrong in saying gold doesn't generate an income.
The use cases of gold are not particularly unique to it's metallurgy and they certainly do not support the high price gold trades at.You can buy it and sell it, jewelers manufacture products with it and sell them on, medical co's use gold in production of goods and sell them. These are only a few of the uses of gold that produce an income stream. So, you're wrong in saying gold doesn't generate an income.
The use cases of gold are not particularly unique to it's metallurgy and they certainly do not support the high price gold trades at.
The uses that you refer to accounts for about 12% of gold production.....not exactly what I would call income producing!
What about a piece of canvas that sits on a wall that cost $5m (or $140m in my recent example).......does that throw off any profits?
Give them a bitcoin and they will also agree and you'll be popular.Give an ingot of it to some friends and see will they agree. You'll become very popular and the presents metallurgy won't be of any concern to them.
What about a piece of canvas that sits on a wall that cost $5m (or $140m in my recent example).......does that throw off any profits?
That's not true Brendan.This has been dealt with in other threads.
Buyers of art get enjoyment/challenge/status from owning it. In some cases, galleries buy them to attract money spending visitors.
The use cases of gold are not particularly unique to it's metallurgy and they certainly do not support the high price gold trades at.
Yes you are right about gold.when they came up with bitcoin they went out of their way to link it with gold, the PR for bitcoin is basically a solid gold coin, they didn't use a US dollar or euro but a gold coin. So obviously the inventor of bitcoin saw something very valuable in the image of gold.
You might consider a Basquiat to be worthless and I would agree with you. But there are enough people and institutions who see something in it that we don't.
This has been dealt with in other threads.
Buyers of art get enjoyment/challenge/status from owning it. In some cases, galleries buy them to attract money spending visitors.
You might consider a Basquiat to be worthless and I would agree with you. But there are enough people and institutions who see something in it that we don't.
Bitcoin offers none of these. Just as my shares in Ryanair offers me no enjoyment other than a stream of earnings.
Brendan
I'm sure every BTC holders gets great enjoyment/status/challenge our of holding their crypto just the same as art...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?