Yah, we’re arguing the same side there. Money is so much more than a unit of value that can be traded. It’s faith in institutions, in the future of a state, the strength of its economy to maintain value over time, to return on investment, to be safe from inflation, and all sorts of other nebulous things.
If I’m being charitable, I suppose the anarcho-libertarian types would propose that cryptocurrency is another valid form of fiat value store similar to paper money, but I’m not sure we have any evidence it would work as such. I would argue that what currently gives bitcoin its perceived value is that it can be exchanged for US dollars, Euros, etc. That is what people believe in, not bitcoin itself. It is a value store, but a very short term one. It behaves like a stock, and people treat like one.
Great episode, and it was also from the bitcoin bull run of 2017.
Valid point about traceability, especially when most exchanges now require you to provide name and address. Governments are pushing to track down capital gains taxes (rightfully so).
There is, however, a difference between me saying “I have this bitcoin address and bought drugs with it in 2013, where is the change?”
Versus
“I may or may not have a bitcoin wallet”
Surprising to see this amount of skepticism on a BB board. I believe this article is old, I have a feeling it was 2017-2018 but didn’t really search to determine that. Just based on the mentions of crypto market cap, etc.
Blockchain solves the conundrum of how to turn ransomware into accelerated climate change. Estimates of exactly how much energy is used by Bitcoin and friends vary - from “only as much as the whole of Estonia” to “single handedly ensuring fiery death for all mammals” - but whatever the true number is, nobody disagrees that by design proof-of-work blockchains use astounding amounts of energy in order to perform some basic accounting.
