This is a classic case of "The market can remain irrational longer than you remain solvent." Whether Bitcoin continues to con investors into believing any of those theses is not directly related to whether those theses have tunred out to be reliable.

Everyone who has ever disagreed with a market has told themselves the same platitude. It doesn't mean they're right.

It is true that the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent, but it's also true that you can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

Sure. But none of that speaks to whether to the alleged usefulness of Bitcoin. It has failed in every way to prove itself useful in any context it has been billed for.

Yet it's still here and has still provided a novel solution to the Byzantine generals problem.

Beyond that core value, do what you wish with it or not.

It's just a tech stack that has potential value, it is not the end all be all of value networking, or value-as-a-protocal but it's insanely useful in driving innovation in this space.

Forest from the trees and all that.

There it is, promises of future things and "potential value", and the abstract concept of "driving innovation".

Yes, it will be around. But beyond the idea it represents, and the technological invention that is blockchain, there is no value. This is marketing and ideas you invest in.

I think blockchains still have a lot of value, not as currencies or assets, but as decentralized databases for supply chain tracking. We clearly have a lot of issues with our existing global supply chain, especially tracking the origin of every component that goes into things. Blockchain has a lot of legitimate uses for transparently tracking different components along their journey, from raw materials until they reach customers, and helping with industrial planning as well as proving compliance with regulations.

Planned economies haven't worked. Market economies have some clear inefficiencies and potentials for destabilizations. Applying data transparency and tracking to a market economy using supply chain blockchains has the potential to enable more decentralized planning to build better options.

Thanks Paul Krugman.

>Doesn't know what PoE is and the value it's provided to businesses already, thinks he is an expert on how it has no value.

You might want to look that up before you say silly things. I'm curious to see the goal post moving you are about to do.

As I said, use it or don't, just because you can't doesn't mean others are wrong lol

It's been quite useful to some of my friends, who love to preach: "Bro, Bitcoin is up 800,000%, you need to invest [in it and in other crypto]"

Also, the chart shows Bitcoin price, which does not matter for what it is talking about. What matters is Bitcoin market cap. If only ten Bitcoins exist, a market price of $60k each is easy, or even $120k each.

Bitcoin had a market cap of $1.2 trillion in November. That becomes harder to sustain when quantitative easing is slowing, when the fed funds rate is slowly rising with indications of it rising more in this year if inflation is where it is etc.

It's the problem of all successful Ponzi schemes - eventually they grow too big and implode.

Perhaps not as a speculative investment vehicle but in terms of practicality and taking over the world, it's been twelve years already to show us the benefits.

It doesn't need to take over the world, or even be practical for spending. Simply being a place one can park money that cannot be inflated / printed away is enough to justify it.

And besides, twelve recession-free years doesn't mean a whole lot for a brand new class of currency. We'll see where money goes when there's nowhere good to invest it AND fiat currency is being inflated like crazy.

> Simply being a place one can park money that cannot be inflated / printed away is enough to justify it.

If you parked your money in Bitcoin on Jan 1 because you were worried about inflation that was coming, today that money would only have about 60% of the purchasing power.

> We'll see where money goes when there's nowhere good to invest it AND fiat currency is being inflated like crazy

We're literally seeing that now. The money is flowing out of BTC even faster than all the other investments losing value.

The original article is overstated and lacks nuance, but he's not wrong on that point.

>We're literally seeing that now. The money is flowing out of BTC even faster than all the other investments losing value.

Yes, but other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

When people are talking about "inflation" my inclination is to think about at least 2-3 years as a time frame.

> We're literally seeing that now. The money is flowing out of BTC even faster than all the other investments losing value.

Yes, currently BTC apparently isn't becoming more valuable. But that's not all that relevant to people who're interested in it for the sake of inflation / store of value.

> a place one can park money

...that can collapse in value at any time, without regard to real-world economics.

Should I really park my retirement savings in Bitcoin, to ensure they don't get inflated away?

There's more than just index funds out there. People park their money in art, stamps, antiques, rare coins, watches, real estate in the tundra. What does a Monet have to do with real-world economics, other than the hope that we all continue to agree it's valuable?

Please don't put your retirement savings in fine art or antiques unless you have spare funds that you can stand to lose. Collectibles consume wealth (maintenance costs) and do not produce it, so the only way you can make money is by accurately predicting what will be popular and paying to hold onto it for years. Most art and antiques decline in value over time, but you can get lucky. You should absolutely buy art that you love and can afford, but you should think of it as a consumable that can retain some resale value (like a car) and not as an investment.

Rural land is a slightly different story, as there is some underlying productivity there (e.g. agricultural use, or maybe there's something to mine), but tundra real estate doesn't sound like a great buy.

Finally, a comment that makes sense. :)

I think what a Monet has to do with real-world economics boils down to tax avoidance schemes.

Park money in an imaginary currency?

Like… buy a piece of farmland instead. Buy oil or steel. Buy something that has some value.

It’s very likely Bitcoin randomly goes to 0. I can’t imagine a long term world in which a random plot of land in Nebraska goes to 0….

Your comment reminded me of that song by Busdriver “Kids, if you want to piss off your parents buy real estate in an imaginary place”