Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Wait, isn't that a false equivalence? Plenty of compelling rational arguments have been made for a $0 Bitcoin: its value is based on mania, it competes unfavorably with other cryptocurrencies, and it sees minimal (and decreasing!) real-world use as a medium of exchange.

View on HN

Bitcoin will probably never go back to zero. The money laundering and selling of drugs / other criminal activities will continue using it therefor it will keep some small value. It has a long way to drop from $3500 though. Altcoins though will probably go to zero as they are completely useless compared to BTC at least being useful for criminals.

But criminals don't want their transactions recorded in a immutable ledger for all eternity...

...I hear they use Monero

It's just Bitcoin addresses, not linked to individuals, doesn't matter it's in the ledger. These people don't go through exchanges with KYC I'd assume. They might do something like localbitcoins or shady exchanges in countries like China/Russia.

What am I falsely equating? I don't think that the store of value argument is absurd, even with real world assets like gold their value is really just socially constructed. I don't see why it couldn't in principle be the same for bitcoin, it just needs to be the biggest cryptocurrency and concrete the idea of it's own value in people's minds for a long enough time, until they take it for granted. Whether that actually will happen I don't think anyone can say. I think it's a mistake to assume that the value here has to do with the technology, e.g. the "best" cryptocurrency must win. It's likely just long-term momentum.

The arguments suggesting Bitcoin has an intrinsic value of $0 have rational, evidence-based premises, like the notion that Bitcoin is technologically inferior to some of its competitors and the lack of its use as a medium of exchange. You can't generally say that about the arguments in favor of Bitcoin, though I'm happy to hear counterexamples.

The "store of value" argument doesn't mean anything. Beanie Babies, tulip bulbs, and Hummel Figurines are also "stores of value".

Artworks, antiques, gemstones. None of these are of any practical value, yet they hold value. You’re over systematising and not getting it. Value isn’t inherently rational.

Also, what was the false equivalence?

Try this: being a store of value is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for Bitcoin's viability.

Try this: why?

Because lots of things were stores of value that aren't anymore.

Can I interest you in a share of Bear Stearns?

And lots of other things that were stores of value still are.

Anyway I’m done with this, I don’t even have a horse in this race.

Because otherwise your claim for Bitcoin's ability to store value is circular. Bitcoin has value because it's supposedly a viable tool for commerce. But it's not currently useful as a medium of exchange, and it competes with systems that are far better than it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com