What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

Re:What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We S... by JumpCrisscross on Saturday October 31, 2020 @05:12PM (#24955232)

This is correct. Gold is the original “it’s valuable because everyone agrees it is,” and retains that first mover advantage. Over the centuries there have been numerous challengers. Almost all (silver being a notable exception) failed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We S... by AstralStorm on Saturday October 31, 2020 @05:55PM (#24955513)

Indeed. That does not negate its base value even in barter. (Though it's much lower.)

And especially items made with the use of gold can get really worthwhile - such as semiconductor chips...

So in a funny indirect way, Bitcoin is tied to gold. Both of which are tied to specific costs of labour. Bitcoin however requires a lot of expensive infrastructure to run to be worth anything. (Esp. networking, required to ensure no fake mined bitcoins are in circulation.)

Even printed cash is better at this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We S... by brokenkebab on Sunday November 01, 2020 @04:20AM (#24958251)

The whole state is required for printed cash to be worth anything. I doubt it's cheaper in any comparison.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We S... by dnautics on Sunday November 01, 2020 @12:01AM (#24957140)

I think just saying "it's only valuable because it's agreed upon" is shortchanging gold. Its verifiability is an intrinsic property if ever there was one, and has to do with quantum relativistic effects in its outer electron shell that only gold has.

[ Parent | on HN ]