> without strong fundamentals

I've used Bitcoin to buy medication from India. When ppl say shit like this, I get confused. Literally sit there & use it whilst ppl say it can't work. Really odd.

It works. I've used it. It works. I'm not sure exactly what it takes to get through. A functioning system doesn't seem to suffice.

"Works" isn't sufficient for broad adoption. It has to create value by solving a widespread problem much better than alternatives. See this classic tech marketing book for more: https://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Chasm-Marketing-High-Tech-Ma...

I've been asking for positive examples for years, and I still see no signs that Bitcoin is poised for more than niche adoption. Sure, if you want to do something modestly illegal, like buying gray market prescription drugs, Bitcoin may fill a niche. But it hasn't caught on for legal transactions, and its traceability makes it bad for seriously illegal activities. And even if you're only doing something modestly illegal, you have to be pretty technical and pretty dedicated to make it work. For most people it's way easier to give cash to their friendly local drug dealer.

So yes, it doesn't have strong fundamentals. The underlying commodity, long integers, is freely available. Despite years of "Bitcoin will be widespread soon" puffery, the use value is very weak compared with alternatives. At least you could plant tulip bulbs.

It's legal to import prescription drugs to the UK.

P2P payment is a big one. I think kids may use it, since they can't get PayPal et al(?). Thought of that yesterday. That's a generation growing up with crypto.

Investing in startups around the world is new (via token sales).

Investing in uncorrelated assets is valuable. Eat gold.

Browser micropayments could get big (Brave browser). Ppl may even get paid for attention in the future.

Iota for the internet of thing (haven't looked into that much).

Hedge against fiat inflation.

Internet ported to decentralised infra if Trump etc start pulling 1984 bs.

Self-driving cars paying toll road via crypto (just made that up).

Solar panels off-setting their cost via crypto-mining. Then ppl have crypto to spend.

Decentralised file systems.

Decentralised storage.

That's a few whilst I whale on my legs.

These are mostly hypothetical use cases.

And that's my big problem with Bitcoin advocates. I ask, "How is Bitcoin creating value today?" And 98% of the answers I get are, "Tomorrow will be amazing!!1!" I have received that consistently for eight years.

Strong fundamentals don't include "might be amazing one day". I too enjoy science fiction, but...

Just checked. Most of them are real

Edit: you seem to not know they are real, because you haven't looked into it. Because you don't think it's real. Maybe someone else told you when you asked, but you didn't listen?

Edit2: Howard Marks -- the investor -- recently said bitcoin wasn't real. So you're not alone in thinking x-real-thing isn't real!

Let's see your data. For things that drive fundamentals, I'm looking for data that a given use for Bitcoin has at least 1% market share versus competitor technologies, and hopefully above 15%, so it's clear that the idea has crossed the chasm.

By 15% penetration, I don't think I can get a 100x return. I've invested aggressively. Don't think that's possible even @ 1%.

I'm probably going to be holding some of the assets for a decade. Something like that. Unless the whole thing tanks.

Good investment opportunities don't come around vary often. By the next one I should have made the money back (& more).

The entire crypto-economy is worth something like 70B. Way smaller than Facebook/Goog/aapl. If you want a sure thing, crypto ain't it! I do think it's a good bet, though (asymmetric).

I've used Bitcoin again instead of a wire. Wires don't go on the weekend.

I'm glad you are happy with your investments, but that seems entirely beside the point we are discussing.

To review, gray-area suggested Bitcoin could be a speculative bubble because there's strong exuberance and weak fundamentals. You objected to that phrase, claiming that "it works". I said that "works" is too low a standard for strong fundamentals; for that you need significant use driven by a user value proposition stronger than the alternatives.

You claimed, as best I can tell, that significant use is occurring. I am asking you for data demonstrating that. I have been asking Bitcoin advocates for that for years and never received any. You haven't given me any either. Do you have it?

Not significant use. Use. I guess there's two questions; 1) does something work? 2) is it popular for a given case(s). This relates to the delta vs substitutes. In the long run.

1 is yes. 2, I believe it will be. We haven't seen 2 much yet b/c time hasn't occured.

A) wires are better, as far as I can tell. For speed.

B) traditional VCs are investing in token sales, today.

C) crypto hedge funds are open today.

I never claimed there was significant use. I would argue it's a functioning system & there are strong value props (better than alts).

You know there isn't significant use. You want to wait? Wait. I'm fast follower. I like to benefit from new technology. Startups/hackers. That sort of thing. I think other ppl can benefit if they have a look. 99/100 hype is bs. Sometimes though.

It's good to be sceptical. I was.

I strongly suspect that your argument is dishonest. Most probably you just bought some modafinil from a couple of sellers who give big discounts when you pay them in BTC (because they are aware of the grey zone they are in). It's not really an argument for general BTC utility.

I bought some rapamycin. It's an immune suppressor for an autoimmune disorder.

& A few other anti-inflammatory medications. & Other bits & bobs.

I've given a list of other use cases.

I've bought modafinil before. That's legal, also. I try & be open about things. Helps against cunts who try & attack me.

Edit: bought the Moda with a CC, I think. Not from a pharmacy.

I'm sorry for my empty suspicions then. This was pretty vicious, I apologize.

OK. Good of you to apologise.

The concept of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies has a strong fundamental value to people.

The value of a Bitcoin itself is only indirectly linked to this -- it is very possible that another cryptocurrency will prove more useful (cf. ETH), and people will switch to using that other currency for their cryptocurrency needs.

Yes, Bitcoin is great and enables new things. Bitcoin "investment" / speculation is another thing entirely.

Correct. Which is why I stay on the ball.

I said nothing about whether it works. A functioning system with the shortcomings and usage patterns of bitcoin does not warrant the large rise in price over the last 12 months IMO.

Buying medication from India was already possible with credit cards before Bitcoin. Next argument, please?

Are you suggesting credit cards also don't have value?

Well, to whom? Legally, only the owner, and they're using it to create debt.

I think you just strengthened GPs argument.

The fact that you can use it to buy real things doesn't means that is has a strong fundamental. To contradict the statement that BTC doesn't have a strong fundamental you should tell which this fundamental is and why it is strong. NOTE: don't take me wrong, I don't have a clear opinion about this topic. I think there's a concrete possibility that BTC will crash when it reaches the limit of 21 million BTC but I'm not sure it will happen, I think we have to wait until that moment to see what happens.

What does 'a strong fundamental' mean?

A global payment system which is faster than a wire transfer. An uncorrelated hedge for assets. P2P payment. Things like that?

A different (more modern?) cryptocurrency could serve all of those needs, which is a threat to the fundamental value of Bitcoin.

For comparison, the "fundamental" value of USD is a trust in the US Government to maintain its value. Comparing that to the fundamental value of Bitcoin would be a fun discussion to have, but the fact remains that the US has done it for 225 years and Bitcoin has done it for less than 9 years.

Actually, by that reasoning, I guess the fundamental value of Bitcoin is the distributed self-interest and capability of Bitcoin holders to maintain Bitcoin's value, which is obviously a powerful force.

>A different (more modern?) cryptocurrency could serve all of those needs

People always underestimate the power of network effects. People have been predicting the demise of facebook for the last decade. Surely something better will come along at eat its lunch, right? Wrong. Network effects are and always will be king.

Why haven't network effects brought to Bitcoin mass adoption already, then? The very nature of network effects is that they are an accelerant for adoption, why hasn't this happened? It's been 8 years.

Network effects isn't about adoption necessarily, its about defense. If a cryptocurrency is going to be mainstream, it will be bitcoin barring some massive self-inflicted wound or some new game changing technology. But adoption hasn't reached critical mass because there are still many usability barriers. Hopefully with segwit we'll start to see those barriers fall away.

Like I said, I stay on the ball. I'm not going to lay out my investment thesis here.

But the point is that a "strong fundamental" means that there is a widespread long-term belief in whatever backs the currency. Bitcoin is too new to have this in human timescales.

Can you make money speculating in Bitcoin? Obviously. But it is not fundamentally backed by something that people have long-term trust in -- it is only worth what you can trade it for at that moment.

I trust cryptography & networks. I've lived a large part of my life on networks. Never talked to a politician.

> but the fact remains that the US has done it for 225 years and Bitcoin has done it for less than 9 years.

The USD was backed by gold until Nixon, you can only count the last 40 something years against Bitcoin's 9.

The USD was backed by your trust in the government to give you its gold upon demand, not an intrinsic ability to physically convert a note into gold, so nothing really changed with Nixon.

Mind blown, right? :)

You do realize the expected date date for the mining limit to be reached is 2140 right?

there are strong fundamentals. maybe they're not strong for you, but hey, that's why there is a market. nobody forces you to believe in it...