Exactly! The biggest arguments I have around Bitcoin are

1: Even if you can treat it like an asset, it's an unproductive one.

2: It's too easy to have some sort of problem and lose it.

At the end of the day, I see the long term value of BTC going to zero.

I feel lucky to have had some at one point, just to have that experience. One day, I saw that Bitcoin sitting in my wallet, and realised I didn't really care anymore. It didn't solve any problems I was having, and I couldn't do anything with it other than look at the balance or send it somewhere.

I'd rather have my future wealth come from value I create, than some asset I happen to hold.

Regarding your last sentence. Trading your time for money will take a long time to build wealth. Wealth is usually created by holding assets.

"I'd rather have my future wealth come from value I create"

He doesn't say anything about trading time for money. If he creates value that scales, he can divorce his time from the money he makes.

I'm having trouble coming up with an example. Can you give an example of value that scales but that isn't an asset he holds?

I prefer assets that I create, or have an active role in such as patents, and businesses, and code.

> I'd rather have my future wealth come from value I create, than some asset I happen to hold.

There is no dilemma here.

If a tanker sinks, that means nothing about the value of oil. Similarly, when there's an exchange hack, that means nothing about the value or security of bitcoin. It just means they had poor security standards.

I agree that most buyers are investing as a speculation; all investing is speculation. Bitcoin is a new type of asset that has properties never seen before. That is what my point is, that they new properties are being discounted heavily by the author as they try to force it into a traditional asset to make a shaky comparison.

But are any of those new properties at all related to its value or why it is being traded? At the end of the chain of speculation, eventually oil gets sold to a customer who wants to burn it and real estate gets sold to someone who wants to live there. If they didn't, those markets would collapse (and housing has done just that in the past).

I do agree that bitcoin (well, blockchain in general) has useful properties for certain types of transactions or record keeping.

But I think the points of the article stand. If a currency isn't useful to buy things, or is subject to wild value swings due to speculation, then it isn't a great currency. If an asset doesn't have any real value to any customers, then it's not a great asset. Bitcoin combines both of those into, a mediocre currency and a speculative asset?